PDA

View Full Version : "Fixing" Monks (without Swordsage)



Talya
2008-01-06, 11:46 AM
I love the "flavor" of the monk class; the ecclectic mix of "jack of all trades" abilities is just fun and fluffy. Unfortunately, we all know the monk, as written, utterly sucks.

What are the problems with the monk?

(1) Massive multiple ability dependance. Monks are the only class that really needs four and a half high ability scores to be effective. ("half" being intelligence. Monks get some useful class skills, but not enough skill points to make use of them well.)

(2) Lack of synergy in class features. The side effect of the ecclectic nature of the monk's features is that they aren't well thought out so they don't actually work together <s>well</s> at all.

(3) Lack of ability to actually hit with their attacks. As a primary melee class, a monk's medium BAB is a serious problem. It's not like they have the utility or damage of a rogue to compensate for it, either.

All of a monk's other issues trace back to one or more of those three problems.

Now, I don't like the idea of just using an unarmed swordsage. Why? I actually like the flavor and feel of most of the abilities of the monk class, especially flurry. They just don't work as written. Now, that said, I do like the concept behind the tome of battle, so I'm going to work it into my completely reworked monk class, which will be a "martial adept."

Now, let's take a look at the monk class features, as written, first of all.


Class Features
All of the following are class features of the monk.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling.

Minor nitpick: shall we add Unarmed Strike in here? I think so.


AC Bonus (Ex)
When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).

These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load.

I have no complaints here.



Flurry of Blows (Ex)
When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to -1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus × 1½ or ×½) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows.

In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her flurry of blows routine to do so.

Greater Flurry
When a monk reaches 11th level, her flurry of blows ability improves. In addition to the standard single extra attack she gets from flurry of blows, she gets a second extra attack at her full base attack bonus.

Woah, woah, woah. First major problem. Flurry of blows requires a full attack, yet (as we'll see later), mobility is a major monk feature. Can't use both? Why not? This makes no sense. We'll have to change that. Furthermore, the unstated stacking with two weapon fighting is silly, but it does point out monks might not be attacking quite as quickly as they should be on a full attack action. We'll deal with that separately as well.



Unarmed Strike
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

Yeah, yeah. This is all good.



Bonus Feat
At 1st level, a monk may select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, she may select either Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat. At 6th level, she may select either Improved Disarm or Improved Trip as a bonus feat. A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them.

Seriously, any monk should have all of these.




Evasion (Ex)
At 2nd level or higher if a monk makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if a monk is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless monk does not gain the benefit of evasion.

Fast Movement (Ex)
At 3rd level, a monk gains an enhancement bonus to her speed, as shown on Table: The Monk. A monk in armor or carrying a medium or heavy load loses this extra speed.

Still Mind (Ex)
A monk of 3rd level or higher gains a +2 bonus on saving throws against spells and effects from the school of enchantment.

I like all these.


Ki Strike (Su)
At 4th level, a monk’s unarmed attacks are empowered with ki. Her unarmed attacks are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction. Ki strike improves with the character’s monk level. At 10th level, her unarmed attacks are also treated as lawful weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction. At 16th level, her unarmed attacks are treated as adamantine weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction and bypassing hardness.

This is useful, but needs work. It's too limited.



Slow Fall (Ex)
At 4th level or higher, a monk within arm’s reach of a wall can use it to slow her descent. When first using this ability, she takes damage as if the fall were 20 feet shorter than it actually is. The monk’s ability to slow her fall (that is, to reduce the effective distance of the fall when next to a wall) improves with her monk level until at 20th level she can use a nearby wall to slow her descent and fall any distance without harm.

This may not be necessary. I'm inclined to give monks Hong-Kong movie wire-fu action, which rather negates the need for slowfall.


Purity of Body (Ex)
At 5th level, a monk gains immunity to all diseases except for supernatural and magical diseases.

Mostly good. I'd give them immunity or heavy resistance to supernatural and magical diseases, too.



Wholeness of Body (Su)
At 7th level or higher, a monk can heal her own wounds. She can heal a number of hit points of damage equal to twice her current monk level each day, and she can spread this healing out among several uses.

Improved Evasion (Ex)
At 9th level, a monk’s evasion ability improves. She still takes no damage on a successful Reflex saving throw against attacks, but henceforth she takes only half damage on a failed save. A helpless monk does not gain the benefit of improved evasion.

Diamond Body (Su)
At 11th level, a monk gains immunity to poisons of all kinds.


All great.



Abundant Step (Su)
At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door, once per day. Her caster level for this effect is one-half her monk level (rounded down).

What...the...okay, this might have been necessary just for survival, but it has to go once we make the monk actually useful. Besides, the wire-fu stuff will help with the mobility, for all but force-cage and the like, anyway.



Diamond Soul (Ex)
At 13th level, a monk gains spell resistance equal to her current monk level + 10. In order to affect the monk with a spell, a spellcaster must get a result on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) that equals or exceeds the monk’s spell resistance.

Very good. Next...



Quivering Palm (Su)
Starting at 15th level, a monk can set up vibrations within the body of another creature that can thereafter be fatal if the monk so desires. She can use this quivering palm attack once a week, and she must announce her intent before making her attack roll. Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be affected. Otherwise, if the monk strikes successfully and the target takes damage from the blow, the quivering palm attack succeeds. Thereafter the monk can try to slay the victim at any later time, as long as the attempt is made within a number of days equal to her monk level. To make such an attempt, the monk merely wills the target to die (a free action), and unless the target makes a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + ½ the monk’s level + the monk’s Wis modifier), it dies. If the saving throw is successful, the target is no longer in danger from that particular quivering palm attack, but it may still be affected by another one at a later time.

I hate once per day abilities, let alone once per week. We'll replace this.


Timeless Body (Ex)
Upon attaining 17th level, a monk no longer takes penalties to her ability scores for aging and cannot be magically aged. Any such penalties that she has already taken, however, remain in place. Bonuses still accrue, and the monk still dies of old age when her time is up.

Good, good.


Tongue of the Sun and Moon (Ex)
A monk of 17th level or higher can speak with any living creature.

Empty Body (Su)
At 19th level, a monk gains the ability to assume an ethereal state for 1 round per monk level per day, as though using the spell etherealness. She may go ethereal on a number of different occasions during any single day, as long as the total number of rounds spent in an ethereal state does not exceed her monk level.

Both of these have to go, like quivering palm and abundant step. There's no fluff-rationale for them, and i'm replacing them anyway. If a monk gains flashy supernatural abilities, they should get some choice over them. Hence, the monk will get martial adept abilities.



Perfect Self
At 20th level, a monk becomes a magical creature. She is forevermore treated as an outsider rather than as a humanoid (or whatever the monk’s creature type was) for the purpose of spells and magical effects. Additionally, the monk gains damage reduction 10/magic, which allows her to ignore the first 10 points of damage from any attack made by a nonmagical weapon or by any natural attack made by a creature that doesn’t have similar damage reduction. Unlike other outsiders, the monk can still be brought back from the dead as if she were a member of her previous creature type.

I like the concept, but we're going to work on it a bit.

So, that's it with the monk as written. Next post I'm going to discuss specifics on how to change it.

13_CBS
2008-01-06, 11:49 AM
We also need to find a niche for the monk. What will it do? Kill spellcasters? Put enemies in lockdown, giving wizards one less thing to do?

Talya
2008-01-06, 11:52 AM
We also need to find a niche for the monk. What will it do? Kill spellcasters? Put enemies in lockdown, giving wizards one less thing to do?

What's the niche for the swordsage? That's where it's going to fit. Note I'm not fixing wizards or CoDZilla, here, either. (I'm not really a believer in the "batman" wizard anyway. While I do see the potential for cheese, I've never seen a player actually able to pull off the level of imbalance people claim to be the norm here.) I'm going to balance the monk against Crusader/Swordsage/Warblade.

icthius
2008-01-06, 11:58 AM
I have a suggestion for MAD: give the monks a meditation period at the beginning of the day to temporarly increase an ability by +2. Make it two abilities at level 6, 3 abilities at level 9, a +3 at 12 and a +4 at 15. Call it "perfect meditation" or something like that.

lord_khaine
2008-01-06, 12:08 PM
Quote:
AC Bonus (Ex)
When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level).

These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load.

I have no complaints here.


i have, i would allow the use of light armor like a swordsage, since else you have to use potions of mage armor in the early levels to get a ac that will allow you go into melee.

Ne0
2008-01-06, 12:19 PM
We also need to find a niche for the monk. What will it do? Kill spellcasters? Put enemies in lockdown, giving wizards one less thing to do?

Seriously, if any more people say that the monk needs a niche, I'm losing my mind. I'm at the brink of madness!

MADNESS, I SAY!

On Taya's post.


(1) Massive multiple ability dependance.
Partially true, but less than most would think. When I play a monk, these are my priorities: Dex/Wis>Con>Str>Int>Cha. I like having a 10 for Int.
Strength isn't all that important, it's better to take Weapon finesse and leave it a bit. Wisdom is actually not all that important. I tend to keep it on par mostly. There's of course also Inituative attack.
Anyhow, I'd say monk has a MAD of three and a half, which is not that bad. I would like to see some more synergy for that, though.


(2) Lack of synergy in class features.
True, but as has been mentioned COUNTLESS times before, a monk doesn't have a niche, and isn't meant for one. But we don't want that kind of discussion again - there is one active, actually, to discuss it in.


(3) Lack of ability to actually hit with their attacks.
That's quite true, and I sometimes feel that there should be done something about it. But I've never felt that a monk should have Full BAB.


Minor nitpick: shall we add Unarmed Strike in here? I think so.

I believe everyone, even a commoner is proficient with unarmed strike. But I believe a lethal unarmed attack without Impr. US has a -4 penalty, right? Just like people not proficient with a weapon. So adding that is both unnecessary, and I can somewhere imagine someone getting confused, or abusing it somehow. :smallbiggrin:


Woah, woah, woah. First major problem. Flurry of blows requires a full attack, yet (as we'll see later), mobility is a major monk feature. Can't use both? Why not? This makes no sense. We'll have to change that. Furthermore, the unstated stacking with two weapon fighting is silly, but it does point out monks might not be attacking quite as quickly as they should be on a full attack action. We'll deal with that separately as well.


That's because a monk isn't exactly a tumble machine. He's meant for movement, but if he wants to do a bit of damage, he at least has to stand still sometimes. Otherwise he always gets an etra attack, quite a bit better than say, the rogue SA, no?


Bonus Feat


Perhaps some more flexibility with these feats? Just a suggestion.


I hate once per day abilities, let alone once per week. We'll replace this.


Actually, the only thing that should really be fixed about it is that it should be alowed to be used more often. I mean, you can use it once a week, and there's a moderate chance that it fails. There's also never been a feat for this. It should be allowed to be used, say 1/2 class level + Wis modifier/week or something. That wouldn't even be as often as a caster can use a save - or - die spell.

Or perhaps class level/5 per day?
I've always liked the fluff on this ability, really original.



In short, I think it's hard to make a monk fix, when there's not a general concensus on what has to be 'fixed' about the monk. It's got a feeling of it's own, and heck, I think that if people where to be forced to pick some ToB-like variant of the class, it'd be played a whole lot less instead of more.

Eldmor
2008-01-06, 12:19 PM
I would also heavily recommend the different "school" variants of monks which allow for different bonus feat selection. I would also allow a bonus feat to be spent on weapon proficiency for a non-proficient monk weapon (ala lajatang) or a Ki feat and the option to be use Decisive Strike in favor of Flurry of Blows for those slightly slower but marginally stronger monks.

icthius
2008-01-06, 12:26 PM
That's because a monk isn't exactly a tumble machine. He's meant for movement, but if he wants to do a bit of damage, he at least has to stand still sometimes. Otherwise he always gets an etra attack, quite a bit better than say, the rogue SA, no?

No. A rogue at level 3 with a short sword gets 3d6 + STR damage against flanked or Flatfooted creatures. Removing the full attack necessity makes a monk at 3 get at max 2d6 + 2xSTR, at a minus 2 penalty compared to a regular attack (and on different attacks, so DR can kill it dead). It about evens out, I'd say, at higher levels, but it's just a bit sub-par at levels under 6.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-06, 12:28 PM
Hi,

...


I love the "flavor" of the monk class; the ecclectic mix of "jack of all trades" abilities is just fun and fluffy. Unfortunately, we all know the monk, as written, utterly sucks.

First objection. You know why.:smallcool:


What are the problems with the monk?

(1) Massive multiple ability dependance. Monks are the only class that really needs four and a half high ability scores to be effective. ("half" being intelligence. Monks get some useful class skills, but not enough skill points to make use of them well.)

This is only opinion. By RAW, the monk does not NEED any ability to be higher than 8. This is only needed by the caster classes (for spells) and those who wish to take feats with minimum requirements.
Everyone just loves high scores everywhere. They are useful to everyone. Heck, even the mages can make use of high STR stats or are weaker if they do not have high STR.


(2) Lack of synergy in class features. The side effect of the ecclectic nature of the monk's features is that they aren't well thought out so they don't actually work together <s>well</s> at all.

They do. It takes a bit of thinking, but they do.


(3) Lack of ability to actually hit with their attacks. As a primary melee class, a monk's medium BAB is a serious problem. It's not like they have the utility or damage of a rogue to compensate for it, either.

This is because many of their attacks happen in several circumstances
- the enemy is surprised (the monk has better move, better spot/listen/hide/move silently)
- the monk can use grapple (initiated by touch attack)
- the monk can use trip
- the monk has eventually more melee attacks than anyone else
And we all should know by now from the many discussions that the monk can get full BAB (divine power) or all kind of combat enhancements which make that 1/4 level BAB not that much of a difference.
The designers apparently did not give full BAB to the monk to prevent the idea that it is the typical melee/tank character.


All of a monk's other issues trace back to one or more of those three problems.

Well, this looks like a lost case to me by now, if you really base your need to "fix" the monk on these three notions. You appear to be quite positive in your view of most of the monk powers below.


Now, I don't like the idea of just using an unarmed swordsage. Why? I actually like the flavor and feel of most of the abilities of the monk class, especially flurry. They just don't work as written. Now, that said, I do like the concept behind the tome of battle, so I'm going to work it into my completely reworked monk class, which will be a "martial adept."

I actually like the ToB. But it changes the game vastly. It's extremely difficult to fathom whether it can be balanced still, say, if just added to core. Or what else needs to be added in that case.


Minor nitpick: shall we add Unarmed Strike in here? I think so.


Maybe. It is mentioned in the feat description that the monk gets it for free, it is logic from the way the table presents the numbers, and it is not really a "weapon", only weapon-like for most purposes.


I have no complaints here.


Neither do I.



Woah, woah, woah. First major problem. Flurry of blows requires a full attack, yet (as we'll see later), mobility is a major monk feature. Can't use both? Why not? This makes no sense. We'll have to change that. Furthermore, the unstated stacking with two weapon fighting is silly, but it does point out monks might not be attacking quite as quickly as they should be on a full attack action. We'll deal with that separately as well.


The problem with this No.1 on the typical "monk fix wish list" is that in core the only exception to the rule that you cannot full attack in melee AND move is pounce (and I think the hydra). So this "exception" is primarily devoted to be some kind of monster speciality.
If you do not shy away from polymorph as a good combat buff, the monk can get it, too, though, at higher levels.
So no fix needed.


Yeah, yeah. This is all good.


Yes.


Seriously, any monk should have all of these.


But then he would be "fighter with extra powers". No.


I like all these.


Yes.


This is useful, but needs work. It's too limited.


Hmmm. Why? It may be complicated to get the monk evil/good/cold iron/silver and what have you damage reduction overcoming ability, but it is not really impossible (ranged weapons or monk weapon enchantments all do that).


This may not be necessary. I'm inclined to give monks Hong-Kong movie wire-fu action, which rather negates the need for slowfall.


No- it actually increases the need for making slowfall also possible independent of walls. That part of "realism" always annoyed me (in particular since slow fall is such a minor ability, anyhow, since it replicates only part of a 1st level spell -feather fall).
But this is just a minor style thing.


Mostly good. I'd give them immunity or heavy resistance to supernatural and magical diseases, too.


Yeah, could be done. Not really that important.


All great.


Yes


What...the...okay, this might have been necessary just for survival, but it has to go once we make the monk actually useful. Besides, the wire-fu stuff will help with the mobility, for all but force-cage and the like, anyway.


Hm. DimDoor is a standard tactics and highly useful, in particular as a supernatural abiltiy. I thought you want to "fix" the monk? Wire-fu? What may that be?


Very good. Next...


Yep. But you realise, we are quite alone in that opinion, incredible as it may sound..?:smallsmile:


I hate once per day abilities, let alone once per week. We'll replace this.


Hmmm. That must be quite good stuff to replace it. The once/week is quite tough, but the ability is also quite powerful.
The abiltiy is not only "save-or-die". It can be quite an awesome bluff if the opponent knows about it and that the monk CAN do it. The moment he is hit, the monk steps back and says "do what I will or you die. You know I can do it". Since the opponent can never be sure it did work or not (not even the monk can! So he does not even need to bluff!), it can offer quite a good leverage for what the monk wants (only to a certain degree of course, and depending on the npc profile).


Good, good.


Yes.


Both of these have to go, like quivering palm and abundant step. There's no fluff-rationale for them, and i'm replacing them anyway. If a monk gains flashy supernatural abilities, they should get some choice over them. Hence, the monk will get martial adept abilities.


Ah, fluff-rationale. Hmm. Won't argue here. There could be many things to replace with the monk class to make it into whatever you think is best fluffwise (the core monk definitely only echoes the typical kung fu movies, even those with supernatural stuff).



I like the concept, but we're going to work on it a bit.


OK.


So, that's it with the monk as written. Next post I'm going to discuss specifics on how to change it.

Looking forward to it.
Do not get me wrong- I would never criticise you for putting up ideas to change the monk class for whatever reason related to fluff or because you change game mechanics elsewhere (for example ,a magic-poor campaign or a compaign without casters, or a campaign without UMD, polymorph and diplomacy :smallbiggrin: ).

But you seem to have based this whole excercise on three balance or "suck" flaws, and there I dared to object...:smallsmile:
Otherwise, I applaud for your many positive assessments of the individual monk abilities.

- Giacomo

Ne0
2008-01-06, 12:36 PM
No. A rogue at level 3 with a short sword gets 3d6 + STR damage against flanked or Flatfooted creatures. Removing the full attack necessity makes a monk at 3 get at max 2d6 + 2xSTR, at a minus 2 penalty compared to a regular attack (and on different attacks, so DR can kill it dead). It about evens out, I'd say, at higher levels, but it's just a bit sub-par at levels under 6.

Yes, but a rogue can't do that EVERY turn. Not at that level. Although there was some cheese with an eversmoking bottle.
There are also quite a lot of boosts to unarmed damage, even at such a low level. And some creatures are also immune to SA.

Talya
2008-01-06, 12:38 PM
Fixing the monk: Part 2

Let's reiterate the issues --

(1) MAD
(2) Synergy
(3) Ability to hit.

Now, of those three, i'm not convinced we need to fix them all. In fact, I'm of the opinion we shouldn't fix them all. No class should be superman. (or batman, yeah.) Now, of the three, the third issue is least important, because we can partially fix it merely by fixing the other two. So, we're only going to focus on MAD and Synergy.

Multiple Ability Dependance

I'm not a fan of merely substituting ability use, such as with weapon finesse. There's a feat in BoED that moves attack bonus to wisdom, and it's useful with the monk as written, but it's a patchwork crutch, not a real fix. I'm okay with all the current abilities monks need remaining useful to a monk, so long as they do not remain required. That will retain some diversity in build and still make them viable.

Strength
Strength is needed for to-hit and for damage. Even if you substitute to-hit into dexterity or wisdom, you still need strength to help a monk's anemic damage totals. The precedent is there for adding precision damage to attacks from mental scores (Swashbuckler.) Why not from wisdom? Note that as precision damage, it would have all the normal limitations of being irrelevant against opponents that you cannot critical hit.

A lot of this is also due to problems with unarmed strike. Why should a monk's amazing 2d10 (or higher) unarmed rolls go unused due to a lack of enchantments?

I propose giving monks a +1 bonus to their unarmed strike in a similar fashion to the way the Kensei adds bonuses to their signature weapon. I would grant these bonuses at every odd level (1, 3, 5, 7, etc.) Like with the kensei, pre-epic, the actual enhancement bonus of one's unarmed strikes could never exceed +5, but it would gain other abilities of your choice. Unlike the Kensei, with the monk, I'm not in favor of this bonus costing anything. Monks rely heavily on equipment as it is. This one will be free.


Dexterity
This doesn't need fixing. Monks do not actually NEED both wisdom and dexterity...they do almost the same thing for them. On a point buy, it's certainly more efficient to boost both wisdom and dexterity to 14 for a +4 armor bonus than it is to boost Wisdom or Dexterity independantly to 18, but that does not result in MAD, it's just cheaper. Now, obviously, if you want to match a fighter in full plate, you need both. But should a monk really be trying to act like a fighter in full plate? Still, they need a little bit. You know that monk AC bonus that goes up +1 at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20? Let's make it levels 3, 7, 11, 15, 19 instead.

Constitution
The D8 hit die never made sense to me on a monk. This is a class, that thematically, has trained to turn his body more durable than stone. Right now, monks need constitution to ensure a reasonable number of hit points. I'm in favor of, instead, granting them the barbarian's d12 hit die. That's the equivalent of 2 more hit points per level, a +4 con boost. if they still want to boost con, they can, but they don't need it as much.

Intelligence
Skills are an issue for monks, a class which spends their entire life studying. This makes little sense, either balance or fluff-wise. Increase skills per level to 6+int rather than 4+int.

Wisdom
Cry me a river. This is your signature ability score. Pump it up, guys.

Charisma
Flavor only, a monk does not need this ability now, nor will it when I'm done with it.


Synergy
Flurry of blows. Fast movement. See a problem? Flurry of blows needs to be an automatic ability that always applies whenever a monk attacks. Using its current bonuses to number of attacks (and penalties to hit), make both flurry of blows and greater flurry apply regardless of whether you are making a standard action attack, or a full attack action. So on a standard action, a level 11 or higher monks attacks three times at their maximum BAB. A level 1 monk will attack twice at their maximum BAB -2. Note that they still add on to a full attack as well.

On full attack actions: Remove the possibility for cheesy two weapon fighting feats stacking with flurry. Monks do not take those feats. However, the 3rd edition monk iterative attacks were more appealling to the flavor of a monk. Instead of every +5 in BAB, we're going back to 3rd editions +3. So a level 20 monk, flurry-full attacking, would look like this: +15/+15/+15/+12/+9/+6/+3.

On Bonus Feats: The monk needs all 6 of those. They get both at every level where they'd have to pick one.

On Proficiencies: Why is it a bad idea to give a monk proficiency: unarmed strike? Now they have it.

On Ki Strike: This needs more flexibility. A monks attacks will always be Lawful, and will be good or evil if their alignment is good or evil. They are also magic. Furthermore, a monk can spend a round doing nothing but attuning their body to fight a particular type opponent. After that, their fists take on the properties of any special material that may bypass damage resistance the target may have (such as cold iron, adamantite, silver, etc.) Note that the monk needs to know what materials the creature is vulnerable to, if they have no knowledge of the creature, they cannot attune to it. (although they can keep their strikes with the property of being adamantite--or some other material--all the time, if they chose).

On Perfect Self: DR10/magic is so useless at level 20. I'm thinking, let them modify it like they do with ki strike. Available choices: 10/magic, 10/adamantine, 10/lawful, 10/good-evil (depending on alignment).

So that's part 2. For part 3, I'll talk about adding martial maneuvers to the monk.

icthius
2008-01-06, 12:41 PM
This is only opinion. By RAW, the monk does not NEED any ability to be higher than 8. This is only needed by the caster classes (for spells) and those who wish to take feats with minimum requirements.
Everyone just loves high scores everywhere. They are useful to everyone. Heck, even the mages can make use of high STR stats or are weaker if they do not have high STR.
Well, yeah, but his AC and attack are reliant on STR, DEX and WIS, and since he's a melee fighter he needs CON for health (even more than a wizard). Every class is reliant on most abilities, but the Monk's effectiveness is determined by it.



This is because many of their attacks happen in several circumstances
- the enemy is surprised (the monk has better move, better spot/listen/hide/move silently)
- the monk can use grapple (initiated by touch attack)
- the monk can use trip
- the monk has eventually more melee attacks than anyone else
And we all should know by now from the many discussions that the monk can get full BAB (divine power) or all kind of combat enhancements which make that 1/4 level BAB not that much of a difference.
The designers apparently did not give full BAB to the monk to prevent the idea that it is the typical melee/tank character.
I kind of agree with you here. I don't think the monk should be a full BAB class.



The problem with this No.1 on the typical "monk fix wish list" is that in core the only exception to the rule that you cannot full attack in melee AND move is pounce (and I think the hydra). So this "exception" is primarily devoted to be some kind of monster speciality.
If you do not shy away from polymorph as a good combat buff, the monk can get it, too, though, at higher levels.
So no fix needed.
Your justification does not make sense at all.




But then he would be "fighter with extra powers". No.
Because he gets extra feats that he can't choose? No, he would be no where near a fighter.



The abiltiy is not only "save-or-die". It can be quite an awesome bluff if the opponent knows about it and that the monk CAN do it. The moment he is hit, the monk steps back and says "do what I will or you die. You know I can do it". Since the opponent can never be sure it did work or not (not even the monk can! So he does not even need to bluff!), it can offer quite a good leverage for what the monk wants (only to a certain degree of course, and depending on the npc profile).
Yeah, as a "save or die", it should probably be taken out and replaced with something that can be more balanced, like a "save or suck" that's once per day or something.

icthius
2008-01-06, 12:44 PM
Yes, but a rogue can't do that EVERY turn. Not at that level. Although there was some cheese with an eversmoking bottle.
There are also quite a lot of boosts to unarmed damage, even at such a low level. And some creatures are also immune to SA.

Sure he can--he just needs a flanking buddy. And at level 3 he already has access to Improved Fient. And although some creatures are immune to SA, others have DR that cripples a monk's extra attack at that level (and most levels after it).

Ne0
2008-01-06, 12:47 PM
Sure he can--he just needs a flanking buddy. And at level 3 he already has access to Improved Fient. And although some creatures are immune to SA, others have DR that cripples a monk's extra attack at that level (and most levels after it).

DR? At level 3? :smallconfused:

Theli
2008-01-06, 12:47 PM
I have a suggestion for MAD: give the monks a meditation period at the beginning of the day to temporarly increase an ability by +2. Make it two abilities at level 6, 3 abilities at level 9, a +3 at 12 and a +4 at 15. Call it "perfect meditation" or something like that.

That's a pretty cool idea.


(All I had to say. :p *thumbs up*)

Douglas
2008-01-06, 12:48 PM
a campaign without UMD, polymorph and diplomacy
Assume UMD device, polymorph, and diplomacy are completely and totally unavailable for the monk, as is usually the case given that they are a cross-class skill with high DCs to use effectively, a generally considered broken spell, and a generally considered broken skill. How does that change your assessment?

sikyon
2008-01-06, 12:51 PM
This is only opinion. By RAW, the monk does not NEED any ability to be higher than 8. This is only needed by the caster classes (for spells) and those who wish to take feats with minimum requirements.
Everyone just loves high scores everywhere. They are useful to everyone. Heck, even the mages can make use of high STR stats or are weaker if they do not have high STR.


The monk is much more ineffective without lots of good stats. A monk with only 2 good stats rather than 4 good stats sufferes much more than a wizard with 2 good stats rather than 4 good stats. It's the relitivness.



They do. It takes a bit of thinking, but they do.


Supporting evidence, please.



This is because many of their attacks happen in several circumstances
- the enemy is surprised (the monk has better move, better spot/listen/hide/move silently)
- the monk can use grapple (initiated by touch attack)
- the monk can use trip
- the monk has eventually more melee attacks than anyone else
And we all should know by now from the many discussions that the monk can get full BAB (divine power) or all kind of combat enhancements which make that 1/4 level BAB not that much of a difference.
The designers apparently did not give full BAB to the monk to prevent the idea that it is the typical melee/tank character.


How does suprising the enemy benifit them other than flatfoodtedness?

Grapple/Trip: Monsters come in larger and larger sizes with more and more strength at higher levels. A medium sized creature just can't grapple/trip at those levels. Sure, it's great against medium creatures, but that's conditional on the idea that you are fighting medium creatures. At higher levels, creatures tend not to be wielding crazy magic items and have tons of class levels usually, instead they are big ugly monsters. The big part with the giant strength is just too much of a modifier.



The problem with this No.1 on the typical "monk fix wish list" is that in core the only exception to the rule that you cannot full attack in melee AND move is pounce (and I think the hydra). So this "exception" is primarily devoted to be some kind of monster speciality.
If you do not shy away from polymorph as a good combat buff, the monk can get it, too, though, at higher levels.
So no fix needed.


Polymorph is generally regarded as utterly broken. It does not benefit the monk especially enough to be reasonable, really.



As for wire-fu:

I am against this idea. Honestly, what is a monk? Someone who lives in a monestary. Monks don't just fight unarmed either, they train with all sorts of weapons. But what you are talking about is a martial-artists. This is different. A monk strives for inner focus/peace, which doesn't seem to be particularly effective in combat.

My suggestion: Either rewrite the monk as someone with supernatural abilities derived from inner focus of the soul, or remove the class, or just rewrite it as a martial artists. I perfer the first option.

.

icthius
2008-01-06, 12:52 PM
DR? At level 3? :smallconfused:

I fight were-rats and zombies at level 3 all the time. But you're right, there are specific instances at lower levels where SA applies less often than an extra attack, but I think it evens out with the -2 attack and the 1d6 less damage.

Xuincherguixe
2008-01-06, 12:54 PM
How about an ability that adds to the attack roll when grappling/tripping? At least then it could grapple as well as a fighter.

Maybe he won't be able to deal much damage, but he might be able to open the thing up to attacks of opportunity.

13_CBS
2008-01-06, 12:55 PM
True, but as has been mentioned COUNTLESS times before, a monk doesn't have a niche, and isn't meant for one. But we don't want that kind of discussion again - there is one active, actually, to discuss it in.



I haven't participated in these "discussions" that you speak of, but without a niche...a monk is useless. Same with any character.

This is why people say that the CoDzilla is overpowered: they render fighters and other fighter types almost useless.

Talya
2008-01-06, 12:56 PM
As for wire-fu:

I am against this idea. Honestly, what is a monk? Someone who lives in a monestary. Monks don't just fight unarmed either, they train with all sorts of weapons. But what you are talking about is a martial-artists. This is different. A monk strives for inner focus/peace, which doesn't seem to be particularly effective in combat.

My suggestion: Either rewrite the monk as someone with supernatural abilities derived from inner focus of the soul, or remove the class, or just rewrite it as a martial artists. I perfer the first option.

.

We're talking about fantasy. Monks in D&D are eastern themed, not franciscan friars. The reality around some of the buddhist monastic traditions is quite combat related (see the Shao-lin monks). The fantasy around eastern themed buddhist monasteries is that they are supernatural and superhuman due to their "inner focus" as you put it. That's why in movies like "crouching tiger, hidden dragon", the monk-main character can jump ridiculously high, and even fly at times.

However, those abilities actually exist to a degree inside Tome of Battle. Some martial schools allow limited flight and amazing acrobatics. I'm leaning toward going with those for the "Wire-fu" capabilities.

icthius
2008-01-06, 12:58 PM
How about an ability that adds to the attack roll when grappling/tripping? At least then it could grapple as well as a fighter.

Maybe he won't be able to deal much damage, but he might be able to open the thing up to attacks of opportunity.

Yeah, that's actually a really neat idea. His BAB is equal to his monk level for the purposes of grappling, disarm and trip.

Talya
2008-01-06, 12:58 PM
Yeah, as a "save or die", it should probably be taken out and replaced with something that can be more balanced, like a "save or suck" that's once per day or something.

For this thread, I'm going to remove it and replace it with martial adept maneuvers. "Strikes" can fit more into the intent of the dim-mak than quivering palm does.

Talya
2008-01-06, 01:00 PM
Yeah, that's actually a really neat idea. His BAB is equal to his monk level for the purposes of grappling, disarm and trip.

I like this, however, I'm tempted to give them an ability more along the lines of "Bigger than they look." For the purposes of grappling and trip, a monk is treated as one size category larger than they actually are.

I'm not a big fan of giving a monk more to disarm than just "improved disarm," for various reasons. I don't think they should have the disarm potential of a fighter.

icthius
2008-01-06, 01:04 PM
I like this, however, I'm tempted to give them an ability more along the lines of "Bigger than they look." For the purposes of grappling and trip, a monk is treated as one size category larger than they actually are.

I'm not a big fan of giving a monk more to disarm than just "improved disarm," for various reasons. I don't think they should have the disarm potential of a fighter.

I don't know, I always think of monks as smaller than they look. Kind of spindly guys who can dodge and kick a knife out of someone's hand.

Talya
2008-01-06, 01:06 PM
I don't know, I always think of monks as smaller than they look. Kind of spindly guys who can dodge and kick a knife out of someone's hand.

They look spindly, but they fight much bigger.

As for disarm, while I agree, for balance reasons, the odds should be against a monk disarm attempt vs. a fighter.

Think of it this way: if the monk fails, he's still armed. The fighter cannot disarm the monk. If the fighter is disarmed, he's toast.

icthius
2008-01-06, 01:10 PM
They look spindly, but they fight much bigger.

As for disarm, while I agree, for balance reasons, the odds should be against a monk disarm attempt vs. a fighter.

Think of it this way: if the monk fails, he's still armed. The fighter cannot disarm the monk. If the fighter is disarmed, he's toast.

I see your point. I think I still prefer the full BAB to trip and grapple over the large size, though. It seems more original and flavorful, but either one would work :)

Talya
2008-01-06, 01:15 PM
I see your point. I think I still prefer the full BAB to trip and grapple over the large size, though. It seems more original and flavorful, but either one would work :)

The advantage of the larger size bonus is that the monk can also use the ability against much larger creatures. Normally, a human monk could not trip a huge-sized creature, and a halfling couldn't trip a large sized one. This lets them use it against much, much bigger foes.

(Heh, and a goliath monk could trip gargantuan creatures.)

Dausuul
2008-01-06, 01:24 PM
I like this, however, I'm tempted to give them an ability more along the lines of "Bigger than they look." For the purposes of grappling and trip, a monk is treated as one size category larger than they actually are.

I'm not a big fan of giving a monk more to disarm than just "improved disarm," for various reasons. I don't think they should have the disarm potential of a fighter.

Instead of "Bigger than they look," how about this:

Size Matters Not: At level X, a monk learns how meaningless an enemy's size truly is. Whenever she makes a roll where size-based modifiers apply, the monk can use her own size or that of her opponent, whichever is more advantageous for her. This benefit only applies to rolls against that opponent.
For example, a monk who is grappling a Huge creature makes her grapple checks against that creature as if she also were Huge (granting her a +8 bonus). Conversely, a monk who attacks a Tiny creature makes her attack rolls as if she were Tiny (granting her a +2 bonus).

icthius
2008-01-06, 01:25 PM
The advantage of the larger size bonus is that the monk can also use the ability against much larger creatures. Normally, a human monk could not trip a huge-sized creature, and a halfling couldn't trip a large sized one. This lets them use it against much, much bigger foes.

(Heh, and a goliath monk could trip gargantuan creatures.)

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, that seems pretty good. What level should they get it at? Find a dead level and place it there, if the monk has any.

Talya
2008-01-06, 01:34 PM
Monk: The Martial Adept

A lot of people compare monk to swordsage, but the monk is far more physical in their style than a swordsage ever will be. As such, I think the Warblade is the closer fit to the monk for patterning martial abilities on.
In fact, some of their abilities I'm copying wholesale from the warblade.

For the monk, I would follow the Warblade chart for maneuvers known and readied. I would, however, follow the swordsage chart for stances known. Monks are going to rely more on stances (fighting styles) than the actual maneuvers. We're also looking at the swordsage method of maneuver recovery.

The only other maneuver related class ability would be "Stance Mastery" (warblade 20th), which a monk would get at 12th level.

Monks would be limited to the following disciplines: Setting Sun, Shadow Hand, Stone Dragon, and Tiger Claw.

These maneuvers allow for limited wire fu (and can actually duplicate dimension door as well), as well as improve grappling and acrobatic abilities.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-06, 01:54 PM
I know that this isn't currently where you're taking it, but K had a good redoing of the monk here. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=9483486&postcount=3) It's a bit high powered, but then again, he was boosting everything.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-06, 01:56 PM
Intelligence
Skills are an issue for monks, a class which spends their entire life studying. This makes little sense, either balance or fluff-wise. Increase skills per level to 6+int rather than 4+int.

Besides the question of monks need this or not, I disagree with your explanation, a monk spends his life studying? you mean while he meditates, trains, and hardens his body, he also studies, does he get any sleep or is he the master of doing two things at the same time?
Seriously though, a eastern monk does not spend his whole life studying.



On full attack actions: Remove the possibility for cheesy two weapon fighting feats stacking with flurry. Monks do not take those feats. However, the 3rd edition monk iterative attacks were more appealling to the flavor of a monk. Instead of every +5 in BAB, we're going back to 3rd editions +3. So a level 20 monk, flurry-full attacking, would look like this: +15/+15/+15/+12/+9/+6/+3.


I would prefer normal extra attacks with full BaB, I mean c'mon it's a combat specialist without full BaB, what the heck? But maybe that's just me.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-06, 01:59 PM
Intelligence
Skills are an issue for monks, a class which spends their entire life studying. This makes little sense, either balance or fluff-wise. Increase skills per level to 6+int rather than 4+int.

Besides the question if monks need this or not, I disagree with your explanation, a monk spends his life studying? you mean while he meditates, trains, and hardens his body, he also studies, does he get any sleep or is he the master of doing two things at the same time?
Seriously though, a eastern monk does not spend his whole life studying.



On full attack actions: Remove the possibility for cheesy two weapon fighting feats stacking with flurry. Monks do not take those feats. However, the 3rd edition monk iterative attacks were more appealling to the flavor of a monk. Instead of every +5 in BAB, we're going back to 3rd editions +3. So a level 20 monk, flurry-full attacking, would look like this: +15/+15/+15/+12/+9/+6/+3.


I would prefer normal extra attacks with full BaB, I mean c'mon it's a combat specialist without full BaB, what the heck? But maybe that's just me.

Jerthanis
2008-01-06, 02:21 PM
The role I've always thought would work extraordinarily well for Monks is this: rather than a raw damage dealing melee force, present a master martial artist as a sort of melee Save-or-Suck type of character. Where the Monk charges in and paralyzes the enemy Hobgoblin with a tough Fort Save based attack, then throws the Ogre to the ground with a complex wrist throw that targets his Reflex save, then hits the Hydra with a sharp jab to a nerve cluster, confusing it unless it passes a will save.

My idea is fairly simple... just introduce new feats which require Stunning Fist as a prerequisite, and they each consume a certain number of daily Stunning Fist attempts depending on their power. Perhaps Death Touch could consume 3 Stunning Fist attempts, Paralyzation could consume 2, and various other weaker powers could consume only one, or even none to use. This would help the Monk achieve a helpful position of Melee Support without a flavor overhaul (It already uses melee attacks to inflict negative status effects, like Stunned or Dead... it's just not good enough at it yet to constitute a party role doing it.)

This concept still adds nothing to a Monk's vertical maneuverability, and doesn't help give it ranged options at all, nor does it help take out Casters particularly, so this isn't quite a finished concept.

Finally, in order to help emphasize their ability to utilize mobility, give them the PHB2 option: Decisive Strike in addition to their Flurry ability, which gives them more options.

Talya
2008-01-06, 02:23 PM
Instead of "Bigger than they look," how about this:

Size Matters Not: At level X, a monk learns how meaningless an enemy's size truly is. Whenever she makes a roll where size-based modifiers apply, the monk can use her own size or that of her opponent, whichever is more advantageous for her. This benefit only applies to rolls against that opponent.
For example, a monk who is grappling a Huge creature makes her grapple checks against that creature as if she also were Huge (granting her a +8 bonus). Conversely, a monk who attacks a Tiny creature makes her attack rolls as if she were Tiny (granting her a +2 bonus).

Perfect. I love it, it doesn't boost their bonus to even with full bab classes, but it keeps them able to work their magic with every possible opponent.

Hunter Noventa
2008-01-06, 02:31 PM
Something else I think would help the monk:


Ki Focus: The magic weapon serves as a channel for the wielder’s ki, allowing her to use her special ki attacks through the weapon as if they were unarmed attacks. These attacks include the monk’s stunning attack, ki strike, and quivering palm, as well as the Stunning Fist feat. Only melee weapons can have the ki focus ability.

Add to this the following:
"The Monk also uses their unarmed strike damage when using a Ki Focus weapon"

horseboy
2008-01-06, 02:46 PM
The role I've always thought would work extraordinarily well for Monks is this: rather than a raw damage dealing melee force, present a master martial artist as a sort of melee Save-or-Suck type of character. Where the Monk charges in and paralyzes the enemy Hobgoblin with a tough Fort Save based attack, then throws the Ogre to the ground with a complex wrist throw that targets his Reflex save, then hits the Hydra with a sharp jab to a nerve cluster, confusing it unless it passes a will save.

The 3.x monk has always struck me as a failed attempt at battle field control specialist than the more often sited (failed attempt) at mage-hunter. I'm not sure how it's going to go over with the fighters, but I think it's a valid idea for the class. After all "What Would David Carradine do?"

Speaking of which. Why aren't monks proficient in spears? In all the old movies, when the school comes under attack, what do all the mook monks do? Shout: "We must protect the teacher/master/uncle-grandfather." the go over to the rack of spears with the pom-poms on them and try and defend the school. In fact, the mace and morning star is really the only thing I see that's "too European" on the simple weapons list for them to start out with.

Oh, and they SOO need an Exotic weapon: Flying Guillotine feat.

Draz74
2008-01-06, 02:59 PM
I have to promote my own Monk (to make up for the time I spent writing it :smallwink:), found here (http://3eupgrade.akashicrecord.org/Monk_rebuild). I think it does a lot of what you're trying to do here, but without necessitating the need for access to ToB.

Actually, since you're a fan of heavy wuxia influence in the Monk, what you want is closer to what I would make the "Psionic Fist PrC Fix." Which would build off of the Monk Fix above. But I haven't smoothed out the details of the Psionic Fist fix yet.

Oh, and to critique your idea: Stance Mastery is a capstone ability, and a good one. Giving it at Level 12 is so broken. I mean, giving full Warblade progression with full Swordsage Stance progression on a class that already has a bunch of class features already scares me a bit, but the Stance Mastery part is absolutely ridiculous.

Cormac
2008-01-06, 03:14 PM
My fix-

they get a fighters attack bonus, they lose flurry of blows, they can either use their body like it was two weapon fighting (for which they will need the requisite feats or differently named feats with similar purpose) or as if it were two weapons (strenght and a half for damage), and depending on how you determine stats, they can meditate for an hour every day to put replace any vital stat with their wisdom score (their wisdom score functions for both stats, they dont swap--and this ability is lost if they multy class or take any PrC that is not specifically a monk).

I really like this fix, any thoughts?

they may have to lose another ability to make it even, because otherwise they might outstrip fighters (but lets face it that is pretty darn easy)-- I think that their inability to wear armor (which is difficult to ever meet up with a fighter in full plate with an animated shield, and the greater expense in enchanting their fists counts for something at least)

Lord Iames Osari
2008-01-06, 04:10 PM
Victorious Press has a monk remake (http://faxcelestis.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=87) in their Previews section that's pretty good, if I do say so myself. :smallwink:

Talya
2008-01-06, 05:55 PM
I have to promote my own Monk (to make up for the time I spent writing it :smallwink:), found here (http://3eupgrade.akashicrecord.org/Monk_rebuild). I think it does a lot of what you're trying to do here, but without necessitating the need for access to ToB.

It's neat. I think I'd take it further, but there's a lot of similarities between that and what I changed.

I don't like Psionics, not that they might not work great. I dislike them as a general rule and avoid them like the plague.



Oh, and to critique your idea: Stance Mastery is a capstone ability, and a good one. Giving it at Level 12 is so broken. I mean, giving full Warblade progression with full Swordsage Stance progression on a class that already has a bunch of class features already scares me a bit, but the Stance Mastery part is absolutely ridiculous.

This is an interesting point. (I always hated that it took Warblade so bloody ridiculously long to get this ability...by the time you get it, you're done playing the character usually.) But yes, we could move perfect self down lower and put stance mastery at 20.

As for the rest, this class has slightly more class features than the swordsage, but is balanced under the Warblade. I think the slower maneuver progression was probably enough. Still, it could be tweaked.

I do like that I have some people saying it still sucks because it's only 3/4 BAB progression...that means I haven't taken this boost too far out into superman territory. (Nobody complains about the swordsage being 3/4 BAB, do they?)

As for the flavor of it all, I like lots and lots of attacks for the monk, but I do not feel the monk needs to have full BAB progression to be balanced. Rather than go with decisive strike or other variants, I figure allowing maneuvers means one can simply choose strikes if they want some single powerful standard action attacks to use at times.

As for skills and why a monk needs them:

Balance, Jump, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Spot, Tumble.

That's 7. With an int score of 10, this monk still has to sacrifice one of them.

Arbitrarity
2008-01-06, 06:04 PM
Minnor RAW issue: Make sure monk unarmed strikes count as magic weapons for the purpose of striking incoporeal creatures. Because right now, they don't.

Talya
2008-01-06, 06:07 PM
Minnor RAW issue: Make sure monk unarmed strikes count as magic weapons for the purpose of striking incoporeal creatures. Because right now, they don't.

Ah yes. That's not so much an issue when the monk can turn incorporeal themselves (which ability I removed.)

Arbitrarity
2008-01-06, 06:16 PM
At 19'th level? Joy, 13 levels of fighting ghosts and crying in the back of the party, throwing sling bullets. Empty body wasn't designed so they could hit ghosts, and to boot, it doesn't even allow you to hit many incoporeal creatures,

Talya
2008-01-06, 06:21 PM
It's not an issue with this build at all, come to think of it. Note that with my monk, fists aren't just "treated" as being magic. They are magic. With kensei-like progression on one's body for unarmed strike, you have magical enhancement bonuses to every poke, smack, elbow, foot and knee you throw.

Arbitrarity
2008-01-06, 06:23 PM
Excellent. I'd hoped that was the case, but wasn't sure. I didn't notice it as a mentioned issue in the OP, specifically, though the "too limited" seemed close.

Then again, since no one seems to see it as an issue, I guess no one plays with it being an issue. Ah well, Oberoni.

Talya
2008-01-06, 06:30 PM
Yeah, come to think of it, I'd remove ki-strike mostly, now, other than the alignment qualifiers.

Nothing prevents this character from wearing leather gloves with adamantite studs, or cold iron bars, etc. You'd just use normal unarmed damage and enchantments, and put on an appropriate pair of gloves/brass-knuckles/boots/whatever in order to beat the DR of your target.

Theli
2008-01-06, 06:52 PM
Except that, by RAW, adamantine or cold iron studded leather gloves may not necessarily confer the corresponding damage type to the unarmed strike.

There is, similarly, no RAW method of enhancing plain gloves to confer a magical enhancement. (Well, there kinda is I suppose, but it's up to DM fiat. And then who knows what's available in splat books nowadays.)

But hey, if that's part of your homebrew, then more power to ya.

Talya
2008-01-06, 06:55 PM
Except that, by raw, adamantine or cold iron studded leather gloves may not necessarily confer the corresponding damage type to the unarmed strike.

But hey, if that's part of your homebrew, then more power to ya.

Well, this is a homebrewed "fixed" monk. I generally thought the main problem with the monk using cold iron gloves before, is that without official "unarmed strike" proficiency, monks could not use gauntlets as weapons.

I also like the suggestion someone made above that any "monk special weapons" could use either their own damage or the monk's unarmed damage, whichever is higher. I'd add to that they they also use the enchantment of the monk's choice on any given hit. (their unarmed, or whatever is on the weapon.)

Theli
2008-01-06, 07:18 PM
Well, gauntlets are its own weapon. If a 20th level monk would try to attack with a gauntlet as a weapon (as opposed to properly punching, kicking, or what have you) they would do a total of 1d3 lethal damage as a medium sized creature...

As was said before, I don't think unarmed strike has a weapon proficiency, making it irrelevent...

But a gauntlet may in fact require some kind of proficiency to avoid the -4 penalty... (Though I could be wrong.) This is usually covered by the all encompassing simple weapon proficiency feat that many get for free.

A possible class feature of your homebrew could then be that a monk DOES get proficiency with gauntlets and it's treated as a monk weapon. Combined with that feature you just stated that s/he/it could use the monks unarmed strike damage and intrinsic magic-like enhancements instead of those of a wielded monk weapon, it could be very useful and thematically sound. (The definition of a "gauntlet" should probably be expanded to include things just as bandage wraps and brass knuckles as well.)

ErrantX
2008-01-06, 07:53 PM
One way I thought of to fix monks was to allow a monk's unarmed damage stack with monk weapons, giving them a ton of different fighting options as far as weapon enchantments go and not restricting them to only unarmed or craptastic exotic weapons. Plus, nunchaku are cool. :smallcool:

-X

Aquillion
2008-01-07, 12:58 AM
No. A rogue at level 3 with a short sword gets 3d6 + STR damage against flanked or Flatfooted creatures. Removing the full attack necessity makes a monk at 3 get at max 2d6 + 2xSTR, at a minus 2 penalty compared to a regular attack (and on different attacks, so DR can kill it dead). It about evens out, I'd say, at higher levels, but it's just a bit sub-par at levels under 6.On top of that, don't forget that the rogue is not, primarily, a melee character; their melee capabilities are secondary to their main role. Monks should be better than rogues at melee fighting; if they're not, something is seriously wrong with the class.

(Of course, in practice rogues are better, because large per-hit damage bonuses of the sort offered by Sneak Attack are generally more valuable than a couple of additional attacks, at least when those extra attacks make it harder to get bonus damage. At higher levels, with things like Haste and additional attacks from BAB watering down the advantage of the monk's flurry, and the rogue using better and better magic weapons, it'll only get worse.)

Fixing the mobility problems with flurry is a good start, but only a start.

Now, you could also make melee combat secondary for a monk... there's a lot of possibity there, giving them more abilities to support stealth and surprise attacks, more skills and skill points, a sort of 'danger sense' and uncanny awareness abilities that help against both traps and ambushes...

icthius
2008-01-07, 09:45 AM
I really like the concept of a "save or suck" monk.

Talya
2008-01-07, 10:36 AM
(Of course, in practice rogues are better, because large per-hit damage bonuses of the sort offered by Sneak Attack are generally more valuable than a couple of additional attacks, at least when those extra attacks make it harder to get bonus damage. At higher levels, with things like Haste and additional attacks from BAB watering down the advantage of the monk's flurry, and the rogue using better and better magic weapons, it'll only get worse.)

Fixing the mobility problems with flurry is a good start, but only a start.

With the right feats, my monk is +15/15/+15/+15/+12/+9/+6/+3 at 4d8 + strength + wisdom + dexterity + enhancement bonus + extra damage from ToB stances/boost maneuvers. Furthermore, they can attack 3x on a standard action, the rogue is only getting one.

ToB maneuvers add a lot of unique abilities, too.

icthius
2008-01-07, 10:54 AM
With the right feats, my monk is +15/15/+15/+15/+12/+9/+6/+3 at 4d8 + strength + wisdom + dexterity + enhancement bonus + extra damage from ToB stances/boost maneuvers. Furthermore, they can attack 3x on a standard action, the rogue is only getting one.

ToB maneuvers add a lot of unique abilities, too.

...don't you think that's a bit too powerful?

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-07, 11:01 AM
Rogue 13/Swashbuckler 3/Swordsage 4 who specializes in Tiger Claw/Shadow Hand.

With the right feats, my rogue/swordsage deals 1d6+Dex+Wisdom+Intelligence+8d6+Maneuvers.

Plus he can attack 3 times as a standard action.

Even further: All his attacks deal a base damage of 9d6+Dex+Wisdom+Intelligence. Plus 2 points of Strength damage per attack that hits.

The TWF tree gives him +15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5, while Dancing Mongoose gives him an extra 2 +15s.

Oh, and don't forget his 8+Int x 16 skill points. Those rogue levels really help in that department.

And thats with just classes "as-is". I think a Monk should be a bit more of a fighter than that.

icthius
2008-01-07, 11:07 AM
Rogue 13/Swashbuckler 3/Swordsage 4 who specializes in Tiger Claw/Shadow Hand.

With the right feats, my rogue/swordsage deals 1d6+Dex+Wisdom+Intelligence+8d6+Maneuvers.

Plus he can attack 3 times as a standard action.

Even further: All his attacks deal a base damage of 9d6+Dex+Wisdom+Intelligence. Plus 2 points of Strength damage per attack that hits.

The TWF tree gives him +15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5, while Dancing Mongoose gives him an extra 2 +15s.

Oh, and don't forget his 8+Int x 16 skill points. Those rogue levels really help in that department.

And thats with just classes "as-is". I think a Monk should be a bit more of a fighter than that.

Lol, I retract my previous question. Poor fighter and ranger, so useless compared to EVERYTHING. :smallsigh:

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-07, 11:11 AM
The bad thing is.. I didn't even include weapons. A pair of wounding shortswords gives 2 Strength and 2 Con damage per strike.

Telonius
2008-01-07, 11:12 AM
Well, this is a homebrewed "fixed" monk. I generally thought the main problem with the monk using cold iron gloves before, is that without official "unarmed strike" proficiency, monks could not use gauntlets as weapons.

I also like the suggestion someone made above that any "monk special weapons" could use either their own damage or the monk's unarmed damage, whichever is higher. I'd add to that they they also use the enchantment of the monk's choice on any given hit. (their unarmed, or whatever is on the weapon.)

The monk starts out doing an average of 3.5+x damage with his unarmed strike. By 20th level, that's increased to 11 +x. So he's already got the damage portion of a +7 weapon. (On average. There's obviously a range of outcomes, but that's another problem). The problem is that it only applies to damage, not to the attack roll. So it doesn't benefit the character as much as a +7 kama (if such a thing existed pre-epic) would.

This might be a radical solution, but I'd suggest a "meditate" ability similar to what Cormac mentioned. The increase in attack dice goes away. Instead, the monk gets a certain number per day that he can trade in for offensive or defensive abilities. Let's say a 15th level monk gets eight of these (pulling the number out of a hat - it'd have to be balanced WBL). He could make his unarmed strike +3 Bane Dragon and give himself +1 Ghost Touch AC. It'd make the monk quite a bit less item-dependent, too. I haven't thought this one out too far, but what do you think of it?

Theli
2008-01-07, 11:20 AM
And thats with just classes "as-is". I think a Monk should be a bit more of a fighter than that.

Ah, power creep. My old friend.

Draz74
2008-01-07, 11:29 AM
Lol, I retract my previous question. Poor fighter and ranger, so useless compared to EVERYTHING. :smallsigh:

Now, now. A Scout 4 / Ranger 16 with Swift Hunter, Greater Manyshot, and spells from Spell Compendium isn't hurting too bad compared to these builds.

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-07, 11:37 AM
Ah, power creep. My old friend.

You mean before or after the Wizard existed? You know the one.. In the PHB? That one? Or do you mean Cleric? Or Druid? I'm sorry, I get all these classes mixed up all the time..


Now, now. A Scout 4 / Ranger 16 with Swift Hunter, Greater Manyshot, and spells from Spell Compendium isn't hurting too bad compared to these builds.

Ok, it gets three attacks at +Irrelevant and deals 3d8+15(Str)+15d6 damage.

Wow.

You'll have to excuse me if I'm not amazed at the sheer.. well, it's not even mediocre. It's just.. Low. 33-129 damage isn't a big deal.

Ranger really needs a boost if you're going to fix Monk as well.

Draz74
2008-01-07, 11:44 AM
Ok, it gets three attacks at +Irrelevant and deals 3d8+15(Str)+15d6 damage.
Wow.
You'll have to excuse me if I'm not amazed at the sheer.. well, it's not even mediocre. It's just.. Low. 33-129 damage isn't a big deal.

Ranger really needs a boost if you're going to fix Monk as well.

You forgot the "Spells from the Spell Compendium" part. I agree that, without good spellcasting, the Ranger is not a very competitive class.

OK, so actually I don't have Spell Compendium and haven't tried a Ranger with a wide selection of available spells. I'm just repeating what other people (who are good optimizers) have told me. And they say Ranger isn't too lame if you use resources (especially spells) from all the power-creeped splats.

Theli
2008-01-07, 11:54 AM
You mean before or after the Wizard existed? You know the one.. In the PHB? That one? Or do you mean Cleric? Or Druid? I'm sorry, I get all these classes mixed up all the time..

Yeah, the wizard is tough. And they got stronger, due to lack of any real limitations on their spell variety. (And perhaps lack of common sense on the part of WotC.) So they had to up other classes as well. So then they had more room to improve wizards, cause they were weren't so overpowered compared to the other classes, they kept doing so. So then they upped those other classes to try to match.

If you can't see that there is a vicious cycle of "balance" going on, then I can't really help you. Perhaps going UP isn't such a good idea? What about splatbooks that reduce the wizard's, and other typically accepted as overpowered classes', capabilities?

But wait, that doesn't sell. Bah.

Yeah, it's hard to make interesting content that puts limits on certain characters... Perhaps a new campaign setting where magic is more difficult to use? Or monster manuals with lots of monsters that specifically pose a challenge to spellcasters? *shrugs*

...

Anyway, off-topic. Thereby incurring the "Thou shalt not ask forgiveness in advance on rules violations rule". Which incurs it again...and again...and again... Ahhhhh, infinite rule abuse! I'm gonna be banned so hard...

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-07, 12:01 PM
Perhaps a new campaign setting where magic is more difficult to use?

They tried that, remember Dark Sun? A setting, I might add, where the Barbarian and "Gladiator"(Read: Fighter) flourished and the Monk died a meek death in the corner. The problem is inherent in the monk, not any sort of power creep.


Or monster manuals with lots of monsters that specifically pose a challenge to spellcasters? *shrugs*

That would be interesting, but WotC doesn't do too well with it's MMs these days.

Theli
2008-01-07, 12:04 PM
The problem is inherent in the monk, not any sort of power creep.

Perhaps. It's just the whole... "Well with 2 prestige classes I can do THIS. So the monk should obviously be able to do better." just got to me.

Perhaps prestige class abuse is not a good place to start when trying to find a reasonable fix for a base class...

Rutee
2008-01-07, 12:31 PM
Perhaps. It's just the whole... "Well with 2 prestige classes I can do THIS. So the monk should obviously be able to do better." just got to me.

Perhaps prestige class abuse is not a good place to start when trying to find a reasonable fix for a base class...
Swordsage is a base class, from Tome of Battle.

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-07, 12:33 PM
Swordsage is a base class, ...

As is Swashbuckler, from Complete Warrior.

Talya
2008-01-07, 12:45 PM
Dancing Mongoose gives him an extra 2 +15s.


Which school is dancing mongoose again? I don't have the book handy...

Theli
2008-01-07, 12:46 PM
Gah, duh. Missed that. Still, it's a similar type of thing. Dipping in other classes just for a single class feature (or a couple of maneuvers) isn't all that much better.

Indon
2008-01-07, 01:08 PM
I don't want to give monks sword-magic (because as far as I'm concerned, that's making them tweaked swordsages, not tweaked monks), so instead I'll just propose a relatively quick fix (which does not give the monk full BAB) which I feel might be usable, touching upon what I think is relevant:

Flurry is now a swift action (for 1 and later 2 attacks), and can be used when wearing light armor. Monks still lose other armor-based bonuses when wearing armor (such as their AC bonus).

Ki Strike abilities can now be used with monk weapons, which also gain the monk's unarmed damage (upon gaining Ki Strike) when higher.

Monks can multiclass at level 5, and no longer need to be lawful at level 9; the internalization of the path opens up new paths for the Monk to follow, should they so choose.

At level 4, monks gain a +1 enhancement bonus to every stat, as a supernatural ability. At levels 8, 12, 16, and 20, this bonus increases to +2, +3, +4, and +5 respectively. Mind that enhancement bonuses do not stack, and only the largest enhancement bonus applies.

I wouldn't remove anything because I think the monk's abilities are the reason one would want to play one rather than a non-monk class. Take what you like for your implementations; I particularly think that being freed from prior limitations with advancement is a potent and flavorful ability.

Draz74
2008-01-07, 01:29 PM
Indon, with your fix most Monks will never use their Unarmed Strike. That's why my fix (linked earlier) included a restriction that extra attacks from Flurry have to be Unarmed Strikes (or thrown monk weapons).


Which school is dancing mongoose again? I don't have the book handy...

Tiger Claw.

Talya
2008-01-07, 02:21 PM
Tiger Claw.

So this build could take it.

And then be +15/+15/+15/+15/+15 on a standard action. :smalleek:

Indon
2008-01-07, 02:34 PM
Indon, with your fix most Monks will never use their Unarmed Strike. That's why my fix (linked earlier) included a restriction that extra attacks from Flurry have to be Unarmed Strikes (or thrown monk weapons).

An optimized monk already doesn't; they get gauntlets to do their unarmed strike with so they can have a plus to hit and damage by enchanting the gauntlets, and take simple weapon proficiency. My change just makes the bypass easier and more flavorful.

Plus, the Monk's weapon can be disarmed or sundered; the Monk's unarmed attack can not.

The best quick fix for the monk's power is to allow him the access to all the same cheese all the other noncasters exploit; things like 2-handed Power Attack (since Flurry is now swift, it is no longer part of the attack action, so the Monk can 2-handed PA with a quarterstaff) and PrC's (removal of multiclassing and alignment restrictions), as well as allowing them more gimmick magic items by removing burden from their WBL (the enhancement bonuses). Now, if you want to make a well-optimized monk, you can. But if you don't think monks need that much change, you can just play the same monk you always have with a few more perks.

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-07, 02:43 PM
Gah, duh. Missed that. Still, it's a similar type of thing. Dipping in other classes just for a single class feature (or a couple of maneuvers) isn't all that much better.

So 4 levels is a dip?

3 levels in Swashbuckler is a dip, I'll give you that. Primarily because Swashbuckler is a joke.

But 4 levels of Swordsage serves a valid purpose across all 4 levels. It's not buying levels just for a goal.

As for the Monk:

Assuming all 18s, a +5 enhancement bonus, and including the -2 from Raging Mongoose, this fixed monk attacks at +22/+22/+22/+22 because you only get one attack per weapon, not +2 attacks.

It deals 4d8+17+Maneuvers/Stances. That includes the +5 enhancement, and the Str/Dex/Wis bonus to damage. Somewhere between 21 and 53 points of damage.

Versus(again, assuming all 18s and a +5 enhancement bonus) +20/+20/+20 for 1d6+9d6+17+Maneuvers/Stances+2 Strength Damage. Anywhere between 27-77 and 2 Strength.

One extra attack isn't alot, and the difference between their attack rolls is only made possible because of two-weapon fighting. But still, I'd rather have the rogue than the monk when it comes to a melee-fighter.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-07, 04:43 PM
Still watching the progress...:smallsmile:

Otherwise, note that the monk is
1) considered to have improved unarmed strike as bonus feat (read the feat description) and
2) thus they are proficient with the gauntlets (read the gauntlet description)
3) and they do their monk damage with the gauntlet (read the gauntlet description)

- Giacomo

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-07, 04:53 PM
2) thus they are proficient with the gauntlets (read the gauntlet description)

Gauntlets are simple weapon and does not appear on the monk's list of weapon in which she is proficient.

The monk is NOT proficient with gauntlets.


Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.

Indon
2008-01-07, 04:54 PM
Still watching the progress...:smallsmile:

Otherwise, note that the monk is
1) considered to have improved unarmed strike as bonus feat (read the feat description) and
2) thus they are proficient with the gauntlets (read the gauntlet description)
3) and they do their monk damage with the gauntlet (read the gauntlet description)

- Giacomo

I agree with 1 and 3.

But, while the gauntlet description says that the attack is made as an unarmed strike, you still need to use the weapon to do that, and it's from using the weapon to make the unarmed strike that you would incur a nonproficiency penalty.

Telonius
2008-01-07, 05:13 PM
Yes, it does say that


This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

1. Gauntlets are listed as a simple weapon, under the weapons table. Monks do not have automatic proficiency in them.
2. Gauntlet is not listed among the Monk's special Monk weapons, as specifically mentioned by the FAQ.
3. The description of the Gauntlet is redundant for Monks, whose unarmed strikes can already do lethal damage.
4. Gauntlets only go on your hands, not on your feet, head, or other body part. The Monk may make unarmed strikes with any part of the body, but Gauntlets only grant bonuses to strikes made with them.

Taken together, it seems pretty clear to me that:
1. There is a clear mechanical difference in damage between a monk kicking somebody, and punching somebody with a +1 Bane gauntlet.
2. The intent of the rule was to deny the Monk the ability to use gauntlets (enchanted or not) in a Flurry.

Now, why would the designers do this? I suspect that it had something to do with the bonus damage dice. As I mentioned before, the Monk's average damage (not counting ability score increases, power attack, etc.) increases by 7.5 per hit between level 1 and level 20. He's already getting the equivalent of a +7 light weapon. The designers may have felt that anything more would be overdoing it.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-07, 05:29 PM
4. Gauntlets only go on your hands, not on your feet, head, or other body part. The Monk may make unarmed strikes with any part of the body, but Gauntlets only grant bonuses to strikes made with them.

Taken together, it seems pretty clear to me that:
1. There is a clear mechanical difference in damage between a monk kicking somebody, and punching somebody with a +1 Bane gauntlet.

Yes, the punch has a +1 enhancement bonus and the bane special ability. They are otherwise the same.



2. The intent of the rule was to deny the Monk the ability to use gauntlets (enchanted or not) in a Flurry.


I don't even think the scenario was considered so talking about the intent is IMHO not relevant, but it is clear that the gauntlet is a simple weapon and not on the approved list of weapons to be used in a FoB.
(The FAQ has become clearer on that subject)

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-07, 05:30 PM
SRD
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

This text trumps everything listed in tables (like an unarmed strike being a "simple weapon" which makes no sense since the monk is not proficient with all simple weapons and it is not explicitly listed as a "weapon" for him).
The monk already can do lethal damage without a gauntlet. So the first part of the text does not apply to him. The second sentence then says it all: everything else is treated like an unarmed strike. This includes then feats (improved unarmed strike, bonus feat of the monk), and everything that a monk can do with an unarmed strike (ki, higher base damage, option to do lethal or non-lethal, flurry).
This also makes sense intuitively, since the metal gauntlet is not really a new weapon, but simply turns an unarmed strike lethal for those who do not already have that ability. It can definitely be enchanted, though, like other weapons (courtesy Lord Khaine).

The disadvantage of the gauntlet for the monk are as follows
- occupies the space of gloves on his hands (no more DEX enhancers, for instance)
- the monk cannot flurry or attack with his gauntlet-hand full and still get any enhancement bonuses.
- the monk cannot use the gauntlet when polymorphing (or needs special size), but he can use it enlarged

- Giacomo

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-07, 05:39 PM
The second sentence then says it all: everything else is treated like an unarmed strike.

I am afraid that is not what the second sentence says. The attack is considered an unarmed attack (not armed), which certainly is not the same as the unarmed strike (weapon).

The sentence is there to tell you that unless you have some class feature or the IUS feat you provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking with your gauntlet.



The main disadvantages of the gauntlet for the monk are:
- The Monk is not proficient
- Gauntlets cannot be used in a FoB

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-07, 06:00 PM
I am afraid that is not what the second sentence says. The attack is considered an unarmed attack (not armed), which certainly is not the same as the unarmed strike (weapon).

The sentence is there to tell you that unless you have some class feature or the IUS feat you provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking with your gauntlet.


Huh? Why only take part of the interpretation of unarmed strike/unarmed attack (which is the same btw in the rules), and not all?
The sentence says "...is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." So everything apart from what the first sentence says is considered as for the rules concerning unarmed attacks. Monks have their special abilities with unarmed attacks. What is there to misunderstand?

- Giacomo

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-07, 06:10 PM
Huh? Why only take part of the interpretation of unarmed strike/unarmed attack (which is the same btw in the rules), and not all?
The sentence says "...is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." So everything apart from what the first sentence says is considered as for the rules concerning unarmed attacks. Monks have their special abilities with unarmed attacks. What is there to misunderstand?

Unarmed Strikes is a special kind of Unarmed Attack.
Natural Weapons is another kind of Unarmed Attack (albeit an "armed" Unarmed Attack.

Monks have their special abilities with Unarmed Strikes (see the class description).

Again, the reason the sentence is their is not to refer to Unarmed Strikes, but to tell you that you are unarmed. See the description of the Spiked Gauntlet for a similar statement concerning being armed.

kieza
2008-01-07, 06:11 PM
I've been toying with the idea of a monk as magekiller. It's an academic exercise, really, since my group doesn't optimise too much, but I'm thinking along the lines of increasing spell resistance, allowing magic immunity for limited rounds/day (maybe 3 at 10th level, scaling to 6 at 20th), or making their attacks deal "feedback" damage to spellcasters (1 point per 20 spell levels prepared, perhaps?)

Fawsto
2008-01-07, 06:11 PM
Let's remove the MAness first. It should be the first step.

Monks need at least 4 decent stats to make it, right? Str, Dex, Con and Wis.

And if Monks could add their Wisdom to the Attack Rolls? Or to the Damage? I mean, OK, the Monk deals 2d10 hitpoints by level 20, but it is not enough if he can't hit anything! Making a comparisson with other 3/4 BAB Classes and PrCs, the Monk is out of the fray due to teh fact that he won't be hitting, or as previously stated, not compensating with damage (Like Rogues). Let me take 2 examples. Clerics and Kensais. The Cleric will surely come up with some spell that allows him to fight well in melee, he has several buffs to do the trick. The Kensai, also having 3/4 BAB is one of the few classes taht you can expect to surely possess a + 10 weapon by lvl 20, and a +5 to hit with all attacks can do the trick to most DR/magic and high AC creatures.

My point, in common with other posters and members, is that the Monk doesn't have any class features that can compesate for their lack of precision. And yet they are called primary meleers! How?!

Making a state. I've being working in the past weeks, almost 1 month or more, in a few class balances between the core meleers and ToB. I respect the book and I surely like it! But I don't want it to replace any core classes. I've managed to "fix" the Fighter and the Paladin, the Barbarian is my next target as I will level him with the previous classes. The Monk is my final objective, and I expect this thread to give me some ideas.

After I finish the works I will present them here. Mostly I've been working with a balance of 50/50, being 50% my own ideas and 50% my friends and posts like the "Rebalanced Paladin". I just have to translate them to English...

Good luck on fixing the Monk, I hope we can make it.


- Fawsto.

Theli
2008-01-07, 06:29 PM
So 4 levels is a dip?

3 levels in Swashbuckler is a dip, I'll give you that. Primarily because Swashbuckler is a joke.

But 4 levels of Swordsage serves a valid purpose across all 4 levels. It's not buying levels just for a goal.

Yes, I would still consider it a dip. The primary purpose of gaining levels in that class is the maneuver that let's you do extra attacks. Combined with sneak attack on a rogue, that significantly increases it's power. Any other benefits from the swordsage is almost just icing on the cake.

That build is taking advantage from some serious synergies between two very disparate classes.

Talya
2008-01-07, 06:36 PM
Yes, I would still consider it a dip. The primary purpose of gaining levels in that class is the maneuver that let's you do extra attacks. Combined with sneak attack on a rogue, that significantly increases it's power. Any other benefits from the swordsage is almost just icing on the cake.

That build is taking advantage from some serious synergies between two very disparate classes.

I wouldn't call swordsage and rogue necessarily disparate, either from from a thematic standpoint or a role standpoint. Both are primarily chaotic type characters (although not necessarily so for either of them), lightly armored 3/4 BAB classes with lots of skill points.

Theli
2008-01-07, 06:56 PM
It is disparate in that one is mostly geared toward general combat and the other has some combat ability, that's mostly dependent on allies and enemy creature type, but is mostly geared toward skills.

If you combine anything that gives you extra attacks with rogue it'll be good. I'm not sure that that combination is something that the monk should necessarily be designed to be able to beat.

Although it is kinda funny how what is essentially a level 11 class feature of the monk could be duplicated by a level 4 maneuver... (Again, power creep. A level 13 rogue/11 monk could accomplish the same thing, although with the added requirement of a full attack. But whatever...)

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-07, 06:57 PM
Unarmed Strikes is a special kind of Unarmed Attack.
Natural Weapons is another kind of Unarmed Attack (albeit an "armed" Unarmed Attack.

But if unarmed strikes are a part of unarmed attacks, the sentence should apply, shouldn't it?
Moreover, feats like improved natural attack also apply to the monk's unarmed strike.

- Giacomo

Talya
2008-01-07, 07:00 PM
It is disparate in that one is mostly geared toward general combat and the other has some combat ability, that's mostly dependent on allies and enemy creature type, but is mostly geared toward skills.

They're less disparate than fighter and rogue, and nobody blinks twice at a fighter/rogue multiclass.

Anyway, I think you miss the point of multiclassing. Multiclassing, whether with core classes or prestige classes, is there to allow you to combine synergistic class features together, and create "the best of both worlds" to an extent. There's a reason why no sane person multiclasses from wizard into blackguard. But half the melee characters existant have at least two levels of fighter in their build, and a huge percentage of dexterity based melee types takes a level of swashbuckler. Why pass up a free feat?



Although it is kinda funny how what is essentially a level 11 class feature of the monk could be duplicated by a level 4 maneuver... (Again, power creep. A level 13 rogue/11 monk could accomplish the same thing, although with the added requirement of a full attack. But whatever...)


This is more a result of core melee classes being somewhat weak compared to core casters. ToB was made to give melee types more power and strategy options, without question. They will be more powerful than their core melee equivalents, by default. They are still less powerful than core spellcasters.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-07, 07:07 PM
But if unarmed strikes are a part of unarmed attacks, the sentence should apply, shouldn't it?

No.
A strike with a gauntlet is not considered a natural weapon attack either.

Again, the reason for the sentence is AoOs.


Gauntlet: ... A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

Gauntlet, Spiked: An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack.


Moreover, feats like improved natural attack also apply to the monk's unarmed strike.

And?
What is your point?

Frosty
2008-01-07, 07:16 PM
Although it is kinda funny how what is essentially a level 11 class feature of the monk could be duplicated by a level 4 maneuver... (Again, power creep. A level 13 rogue/11 monk could accomplish the same thing, although with the added requirement of a full attack. But whatever...)

And what maneuver is that and what does it do?

Theli
2008-01-07, 07:39 PM
They're less disparate than fighter and rogue, and nobody blinks twice at a fighter/rogue multiclass.

*shrugs* True enough. But then fighter doesn't give extra attacks. (Except if it increases BAB by enough, of course...) So the synergy I'm talking about is not as prevalent there.


Anyway, I think you miss the point of multiclassing. Multiclassing, whether with core classes or prestige classes, is there to allow you to combine synergistic class features together, and create "the best of both worlds" to an extent. There's a reason why no sane person multiclasses from wizard into blackguard. But half the melee characters existant have at least two levels of fighter in their build, and a huge percentage of dexterity based melee types takes a level of swashbuckler. Why pass up a free feat?

Well yeah, but some things are just too good when you look at it from a synergistic point of view. In fact, I would argue the assumption that synergy really is what multiclass was intended to accomplish. Perhaps it's intention is in fact to give a caster more durability, or to give a more martial character more versatility. Or simply to allow characters to stand out against others of their class. And all this damned synergy is just a side-effect that helps sell books. We've gotten so used to finding synergy that we base character concepts on it, rather than the other way around.

Although that's perhaps beside the point.

What might be more relevant is that perhaps the monk should not have greater capability than some random synergy which may or may not actually be the result of the designer's intent. Instead, maybe a monk could have a similar type of synergy with other classes when multiclassing. (If synergy is so damned important and necessary.)


This is more a result of core melee classes being somewhat weak compared to core casters. ToB was made to give melee types more power and strategy options, without question. They will be more powerful than their core melee equivalents, by default. They are still less powerful than core spellcasters.

Exactly. This is why I call power creep. (I'd personally doubt that they're necessarily weaker than core spellcasters using only core material without convenient houserules. But that's not an argument I'm prepared to go into.)

Theli
2008-01-07, 07:41 PM
And what maneuver is that and what does it do?

Dancing Mongoose, I believe, grants 2 additional attacks. But I could be wrong. I don't have the book in front of me. I'm just basing it on somebody else's post.

Talya
2008-01-07, 07:41 PM
Exactly. This is why I call power creep. (I'd personally doubt that they're necessarily weaker than core spellcasters using only core material without convenient houserules. But that's not an argument I'm prepared to go into.)


It's not powercreep if it's evening up with core spellcasters. Spellcasters have gone through some slow power creep (their most powerful spells are all core SRD, although there is some nice stuff that has come out since then). TOB isn't "creep," it's utterly remaking the melee paradigm to give them a reason to exist.

As or core casters vs. martial adepts, have you looked at the core level 6-9 spell lists?

Aquillion
2008-01-07, 07:44 PM
Ranger really needs a boost if you're going to fix Monk as well.That one is easy. Swap the ranger and druid animal companion progressions. Presto, the ranger has a decent ability to be two sorta-ok fighters at once, and the druid can more than make up for the loss with SNA, wildshape, and buffing their weakened companion.

Plus, the ranger can then use their enhanced companion to tank while taking advantage of their ranged attacks... Maybe they could also get an ability that makes it so their animal companion doesn't count for the purpose of firing into melee. They get improved precise shot already, so they just have to get a good grappler animal companion, order it to grapple an enemy, and then all their ranged attacks hit automatically... hrm, need an alternate version of Power Attack for bows.

Theli
2008-01-07, 07:45 PM
Have you looked at the core level 6-9 spell lists?

Yeah, so? A lot of people misread these spells giving them the ability to do more than they were intended to do. And the ToB packs a decent amount of power.

But anyway, I'm gonna have to wuss out, and just make that assertion and let it drop. I'm far from prepared to argue this.

Talya
2008-01-07, 07:48 PM
That one is easy. Swap the ranger and druid animal companion progressions. Presto, the ranger has a decent ability to be two sorta-ok fighters at once, and the druid can more than make up for the loss with SNA, wildshape, and buffing their weakened companion.


Brilliant. Although it's scary, I think the druid is still the more powerful of the two. Which says something about how stupidly they were designed to start with...

Theli
2008-01-07, 08:03 PM
It's not powercreep if it's evening up with core spellcasters. Spellcasters have gone through some slow power creep (their most powerful spells are all core SRD, although there is some nice stuff that has come out since then). TOB isn't "creep," it's utterly remaking the melee paradigm to give them a reason to exist.

Really? Spellcasters have gone through slow power creep? Isn't any batman wizard worth their salt packing at bare minimum a dozen spells from splatbooks? Isn't the much vaunted power of time stop at least somewhat dependent on a non-core spell?

Hell, I could be wrong. *shrugs*


But yes, even "evening up" is considered power creep. Because there is no limit. Properly evening up individual classes means that their synergy would be greater. Which means that spellcasters would then have to be "evened up". There is always something that you could find in a diverse enough system that makes one character stronger than another, given the same effort to optimize both. (Effort doesn't necessary find every possible synergistic effect. Sometimes you just get lucky.)

Note that no, I don't really think that melee characters have been properly balanced to spellcasters yet. Maybe if the books were heavily restricted AGAINST spellcasters, and everyone else had every single thing released available to them, then yes. Probably.

Dausuul
2008-01-08, 12:42 AM
Really? Spellcasters have gone through slow power creep? Isn't any batman wizard worth their salt packing at bare minimum a dozen spells from splatbooks? Isn't the much vaunted power of time stop at least somewhat dependent on a non-core spell?

Time stop is overrated; while it can be abused in certain very specific ways, it's not the be-all and end-all. The Core "power spells" at 9th level are gate, wail of the banshee, and shapechange. Also see greater planar binding (the high-level sorceror's best friend), greater teleport, contingency, heavily metamagicked enervation, Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion, mind blank, Otiluke's telekinetic sphere, mass charm monster, maze, mass suggestion... and let's not even get into polymorph any object.

It's not the crazy five-spell combo maneuvers that make Batman overpowered. Those combos look pretty on paper, but are nearly impossible to pull off unless your DM is a total pushover. What makes Batman overpowered is the list of workhorse spells like those above. They aren't Total Win Buttons, but they're still way more powerful than anything a non-caster can come up with at the same level, even a martial adept.

Also note that some of the best metamagic rods, including Quicken Spell, are Core. Metamagic rods are a major element of Batman's superiority. Whoever thought it was a good idea to let wizards get non-level-adjusted metamagic, EVER, needs a serious whacking with the Clue Bat.


But yes, even "evening up" is considered power creep. Because there is no limit. Properly evening up individual classes means that their synergy would be greater. Which means that spellcasters would then have to be "evened up".

I'm... not sure I get what you're talking about here. Are you saying that casters now need to be "evened up" so as to put them on a level with ToB characters? I can't say as how I agree with that. The ToB brings melee warriors up to the point where they can be in the same campaign with casters at level 12+ and not feel utterly useless; I don't consider it "power creep" until it results in a ToB character who can put a Core caster in the shade.

Khanderas
2008-01-08, 03:32 AM
Also note that some of the best metamagic rods, including Quicken Spell, are Core. Metamagic rods are a major element of Batman's superiority. Whoever thought it was a good idea to let wizards get non-level-adjusted metamagic, EVER, needs a serious whacking with the Clue Bat.
Certainly agree. How many items replace a feat now again (and does it better) ?



I'm... not sure I get what you're talking about here. Are you saying that casters now need to be "evened up" so as to put them on a level with ToB characters? I can't say as how I agree with that. The ToB brings melee warriors up to the point where they can be in the same campaign with casters at level 12+ and not feel utterly useless; I don't consider it "power creep" until it results in a ToB character who can put a Core caster in the shade
Power creep is not balance. Power creep is the slow increase in power for classes to keep up. Keep up means in this case all classes wants to be just slightly better then all the other classes, so they add things, rarely subtracts.
A splatbook that does not have classes slightly to very more powerful then its predecessors ? It wont sell. Therefore, most new books add to the power race. With optional rules, additions that lessens the power for YOU, means you are not playing with that rule (as a rule).
Add to that every new edition is also, for above reasons, more superhero-ish the the previous.

Rutee
2008-01-08, 03:53 AM
Power creep is not balance. Power creep is the slow increase in power for classes to keep up. Keep up means in this case all classes wants to be just slightly better then all the other classes, so they add things, rarely subtracts.
A splatbook that does not have classes slightly to very more powerful then its predecessors ? It wont sell. Therefore, most new books add to the power race. With optional rules, additions that lessens the power for YOU, means you are not playing with that rule (as a rule).
Add to that every new edition is also, for above reasons, more superhero-ish the the previous.

...The part that makes me go hm about this... Whitewolf proves you wrong. I mean, you /should/ be right, but you're not.. I mean, the Tradition books /don't give you anything/, mostly. They cover some processes, sure, but it's not.. actually more powerful. It's tons of setting info, and it's edifying,b ut it's not going to make you more powerful. So somethign about the idea of saying that Power Creep is inevitable is... weird or wrong..

Indon
2008-01-08, 08:48 AM
...The part that makes me go hm about this... Whitewolf proves you wrong. I mean, you /should/ be right, but you're not.. I mean, the Tradition books /don't give you anything/, mostly. They cover some processes, sure, but it's not.. actually more powerful. It's tons of setting info, and it's edifying,b ut it's not going to make you more powerful. So somethign about the idea of saying that Power Creep is inevitable is... weird or wrong..

Are you talking about the new world of darkness?

Because from what I've heard from fellow Mage players (I only had the Technocracy book), old WoD had very significant power creep in static effects from the additional books (of course Dynamic Magic by its' nature can't really ever change, ironically enough). I _know_ there was also power creep among other facets of the system (Werewolf, in particular).

Theli
2008-01-08, 09:35 AM
Time stop is overrated; while it can be abused in certain very specific ways, it's not the be-all and end-all. The Core "power spells" at 9th level are gate, wail of the banshee, and shapechange. Also see greater planar binding (the high-level sorceror's best friend), greater teleport, contingency, heavily metamagicked enervation, Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion, mind blank, Otiluke's telekinetic sphere, mass charm monster, maze, mass suggestion... and let's not even get into polymorph any object.

It's not the crazy five-spell combo maneuvers that make Batman overpowered. Those combos look pretty on paper, but are nearly impossible to pull off unless your DM is a total pushover. What makes Batman overpowered is the list of workhorse spells like those above. They aren't Total Win Buttons, but they're still way more powerful than anything a non-caster can come up with at the same level, even a martial adept.

Also note that some of the best metamagic rods, including Quicken Spell, are Core. Metamagic rods are a major element of Batman's superiority. Whoever thought it was a good idea to let wizards get non-level-adjusted metamagic, EVER, needs a serious whacking with the Clue Bat.


*shrugs* Like I said, far from prepared to argue. Those spells have some amount of limitations that are perhaps ignored some of the time. And rods probably assumed some kind of balancing factor as far as their cost and availability are concerned. And that's pretty much all I can say about that. I know an argument that I'm not prepared to debate when I see one.




I'm... not sure I get what you're talking about here. Are you saying that casters now need to be "evened up" so as to put them on a level with ToB characters? I can't say as how I agree with that. The ToB brings melee warriors up to the point where they can be in the same campaign with casters at level 12+ and not feel utterly useless; I don't consider it "power creep" until it results in a ToB character who can put a Core caster in the shade.

Just read the next paragraph. No, they do not need to be improved in order to match ToB. All I said in the previous post to that one is that ToB are perhaps decently close to the power of core casters, with only core material, and no houserules. (That ToB is not effectively "overshadowed" by those core/core/non-houseruled casters.) They weren't properly "evened up" as I would define it. But they aren't exactly behind either. They are "easily playable when efficiently played when casters are also efficiently played", if that helps.

Rutee
2008-01-08, 01:07 PM
Are you talking about the new world of darkness?

Because from what I've heard from fellow Mage players (I only had the Technocracy book), old WoD had very significant power creep in static effects from the additional books (of course Dynamic Magic by its' nature can't really ever change, ironically enough). I _know_ there was also power creep among other facets of the system (Werewolf, in particular).

I don't know how one would figure this out at this point, and I've not botherred doing optimization in WoD (New or Old), but quite frankly, I have heard Two Hundred Thousand different opinions on who's the strongest in WoD and why. That tells me that there's not too much Creep, in all reality, people just all end up forming their own opinion (Though I don't believe I've ever heard that Vampires were tops, so in a sense, you have a point).

And I'd have to ask /where/ they found this additional power creep. I can't say I have every book for Mage ever, but I have the vast majority of the Tradition/Technocracy books. There's a few new magic items which seem to be on the same level of power as each other, but that's quite literally it.

For Exalted... everyone can and will point to Sidereals, but the simple fact is, Sidereal Martial Arts are Ess 6+. We don't have comparable Lunar or Solar Charms. You could say it's power creep, I'll grant; I certainly have. But you'd have to explain the logic behind saying the Lunars or Dragonblooded books were. Abyssals are a special case anyway; New effects, but not usually better ones..

Indon
2008-01-08, 07:02 PM
For Exalted... everyone can and will point to Sidereals, but the simple fact is, Sidereal Martial Arts are Ess 6+. We don't have comparable Lunar or Solar Charms. You could say it's power creep, I'll grant; I certainly have. But you'd have to explain the logic behind saying the Lunars or Dragonblooded books were. Abyssals are a special case anyway; New effects, but not usually better ones..

Exalted (1'st ed) can't have power creep. The most powerful character option was the first book published, and that was pretty obviously intentional: "You're the ruler of the universe. Go have fun!".

And Sidereal martial arts aren't that powerful (they really only even out a lot of the power gap between them and solars), and Eclipse caste Solars, Moonshadow caste Abyssal (okay, might be harder for them), and any sufficiently powerful Terrestrial Exalt (requiring two charms described in the Players' guide as prereqs) can all learn them in addition to sidereals.

Kellus
2008-01-08, 08:49 PM
I like the way you address the problems of the monk class; you've pretty much summed it up. I like some of the solutions you present, but your modified monk still doesn't really have a role aside from 'guy who hits stuff'.

If you're interested, I made an attempt at a monk redo a while back here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58317). It's not perfect, and it reads sort of as a blend of monk, factotum, and bard, but I still kind of like it. I took a different direction than you, and basically rebuilt the class from the ground up. To fill a role in the party, I made the monk excellent at special combat maneuvers, but still made him able to hit hard. Take a look, if you're interested. It needs to be retouched and edited, but that won't be happening any time soon. :smalltongue:

Still, nice work so far!

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-09, 02:00 AM
No.
A strike with a gauntlet is not considered a natural weapon attack either.

Again, the reason for the sentence is AoOs.


Where does that say so in the rules?
And a spiked gauntlet is vastly different from merely clothing your unarmed attack (or strike) in metal to make it lethal.
For once, the damage type changes (from bludgeoning to piercing), the amount of damage and the price. So it is a completely different kind of weapon, and, as such, there is hardly a similarity between the two (other than occupying gauntlet space on your hand for magical item purposes and being in the category of light weapons).
It is basically a metal unarmed strike in the first case, and a dagger attached to your gauntlet in the second. Of course a monk in that second case cannot apply his monk damage and unarmed advantages to a spiked gauntlet.

- Giacomo

Khanderas
2008-01-09, 02:57 AM
Where does that say so in the rules?
And a spiked gauntlet is vastly different from merely clothing your unarmed attack (or strike) in metal to make it lethal.
For once, the damage type changes (from bludgeoning to piercing), the amount of damage and the price. So it is a completely different kind of weapon, and, as such, there is hardly a similarity between the two (other than occupying gauntlet space on your hand for magical item purposes and being in the category of light weapons).
It is basically a metal unarmed strike in the first case, and a dagger attached to your gauntlet in the second. Of course a monk in that second case cannot apply his monk damage and unarmed advantages to a spiked gauntlet.

- Giacomo
Makes sense to me.
Spiked gauntlets - Your style has to be altered when you fight with them, to account for weight and use of the spikes effectivly.
Gauntlets, gloves, handwraps - Fight as normal, except they are items and should be enchantable as anything else. Perhaps an added cost due to them not being as standard as a +something sword. Certainly being rarer (insofar as finding it in non-monestary loots or MagicItemsRUS).

Edit: Infact the only confusing part to me, is it confuses others and I don't really see how.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-09, 04:31 AM
Where does that say so in the rules?

It list a few kinds of weapon, including Natural weapons and Unarmed Strikes, when they talk about unarmed attacks, but they do not generally use it as a weapon group.
Another use of the term is when it comes to determining if you provoke an attack of opportunity with your attack.

Your interpretation requires that an attack with a gauntlet is considered both an Unarmed Strike and a Natural Weapon attack, which is not only silly, but also creates the problem that you cannot flurry with natural weapons.

Unarmed attacks are not identical to Unarmed Strikes and the terms are not used interchangeably.


And a spiked gauntlet is vastly different from merely clothing your unarmed attack (or strike) in metal to make it lethal.
For once, the damage type changes (from bludgeoning to piercing), the amount of damage and the price. So it is a completely different kind of weapon, and, as such, there is hardly a similarity between the two (other than occupying gauntlet space on your hand for magical item purposes and being in the category of light weapons).
It is basically a metal unarmed strike in the first case, and a dagger attached to your gauntlet in the second. Of course a monk in that second case cannot apply his monk damage and unarmed advantages to a spiked gauntlet.


Of course it is a different kind of weapon. The point was not to claim that they were identical, but to draw to your attention the line that had importance for AoOs.

The line I quoted for the spiked gauntlet is not necessary. Of course an attack with a spiked gauntlet is an armed attack, but it was included because in spite of the mechanical differences, to avoid confusion when determining if you provoked an AoO when attacking with them like you do when you use a regular gauntlet.

For the gauntlet the line was included for good reason. You still provoke AoOs even though you are making the attack with a weapon.

After the wording of the FAQ has been cleared up there is less reason for confusion.

The gauntlet is a weapon and as such requires proficiency. It turns Unarmed Strike damage into lethal damage and allow you to add enhancements. Unless you are considered armed when attacking unarmed you provoke an AoO from attacking with the gauntlet.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-09, 04:45 AM
Gauntlets, gloves, handwraps - Fight as normal, except they are items and should be enchantable as anything else. Perhaps an added cost due to them not being as standard as a +something sword. Certainly being rarer (insofar as finding it in non-monestary loots or MagicItemsRUS).

How things "should be" and how the RAW are are sometimes quite different things.

You should note that by RAW you can enhance gauntlets and at no added cost.

You should also note that they already appear on the treasure generating list under uncommon melee weapons.


Edit: Infact the only confusing part to me, is it confuses others and I don't really see how.


I am glad that you are not confused.

Eldariel
2008-01-09, 06:12 AM
I think one major problem (portition of the MAD really) is that Monks cannot properly utilize the alternative forms of combat due to the fact that they tend to need Wis and Dex so they can't spare a high Str and there's no way to make (offensive) Trips, Sunders, Grapples et al. keyed off a stat other than Str, so Monks are stuck not being able to use these very Monkish-feeling abilities (at least I feel the ability to try to place opponent in a disadvantageous position in combat is quite Monkish and well, since they are melee-fighters anyways, it just seems natural that they'd be able to trip/sunder/bull rush/grapple efficiently without unnaturally high str). Maybe give them a class feature around level 13 or something that allows them to use their Dex/Wis for Str-checks (or at least add either stat to the check) or at least make it possible to pick such up as a feat.

Tormsskull
2008-01-09, 12:32 PM
I see that everyone and their brother has a monk remake, so I guess I'll just toss out a few suggestions of my own.

Allow Wisdom to apply to a Monk's to hit modifier in addition to Armor Class as it is now (so Wisdom or Strength as strandard, not both).

At level two or three they get an ability called Strength from Within. This allows them to use their Wisdom modifier in place of Strength for calculating bonus damage. Also, I really liked Dausuul's Size Matters Not ability, give them that as well.

This effectively removes Strength as a needed stat from the monk, reducing their MAD, allows them to grapple enemies even when the enemies are much larger than themself.


As far as the debate going on RAW wise here for gauntlets, I've always been a big fan of trying to find common sense or sources that have something in common to shed light when the RAW is not 100% clear. So not like it is the best evidence, but I know in the Neverwinter Nights CRPG based on 3e D&D the Monks can use magical gloves to enhance their attacks.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-09, 12:49 PM
As far as the debate going on RAW wise here for gauntlets, I've always been a big fan of trying to find common sense or sources that have something in common to shed light when the RAW is not 100% clear. So not like it is the best evidence, but I know in the Neverwinter Nights CRPG based on 3e D&D the Monks can use magical gloves to enhance their attacks.

Strictly speaking I (and the RAW) agree, they just cannot be used in a FoB and the monk is not proficient. :smallwink:

Allowing magical handwraps, footwraps, sandals or similar that can be enhanced is a reasonable house rule that I would recommend for every game featuring monks.

Tormsskull
2008-01-10, 06:47 AM
Allowing magical handwraps, footwraps, sandals or similar that can be enhanced is a reasonable house rule that I would recommend for every game featuring monks.

Yeah. I know in Star Wars RCR (also d20) had an item called Combat Gloves. The gloves give +2 to Unarmed Strike damage. Seems to me allowing something like that it D&D (a glove that enhances Unarmed Strikes) would work just fine.

Funkyodor
2008-01-10, 08:04 AM
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Why not just insert masterwork in there so that it says...

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a masterwork manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either masterwork manufactured weapons or natural weapons. (This can also be accomplished for around 40 to 50k by purchasing a Luck Blade with one wish and reselling the blade when finished.)

Monk can quit crying about his puny fists because they can be enchanted just like any other weapon. Purchase Silversheen and some potions with that druid spell that enhances natural attacks with Cold Iron properties.

Change it so that Two Weapon Fighting and Flurry (Not the entire TWF chain, just the first one; and not Greater Flurry, just the first one) can be used as a standard action with no additional penalty.

Everyone is now more aggressive when mobile if using off hand attacks, and the Monks body can be weapon enchanted however you want. Kinda like how a Warforged can armor enchant his body (precedent).

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-10, 06:36 PM
How things "should be" and how the RAW are are sometimes quite different things.

Please forgive me, Lord Silvanos - in this unarmed attack/unarmed strike thing you are simply wrong.
Even in the weapons table both "unarmed strike" and "gauntlet" are listed as "unarmed attacks".
And, once again, the description provides everything we need to know:
SRD
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
A monk does "unarmed strike". Gauntlet does lethal damage (and can actually only do lethal damage, not even a monk can change that to non-lethal without taking the -4 penaltY). That is the only difference to "unarmed strike", the only other sub-category in the category "unarmed attacks" (and the only instance when a difference is ever made between unarmed strike and unarmed attack, even in the improved unarmed strike feat description, unarmed strike and unarmed attack are not distinguised. Basically only that feat turns your unarmed strike into a status that you are considered "armed", i.e. not provoking AoO).

Ah, and btw, while a monk cannot flurry with natural attacks, he can still use unarmed strikes in other (morphed) forms, and he can also take the improved natural attack feat to enhance his unarmed strike damage, as does the enlarge spell.


You should note that by RAW you can enhance gauntlets and at no added cost.

Yes, that is correct.


You should also note that they already appear on the treasure generating list under uncommon melee weapons.

Yep.

- Giacomo

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 06:58 PM
Please forgive me, Lord Silvanos - in this unarmed attack/unarmed strike thing you are simply wrong.

No. :smalltongue:


Even in the weapons table both "unarmed strike" and "gauntlet" are listed as "unarmed attacks".


Yes of course they are, since they are both considered unarmed attacks.
A dagger and a light mace are both light melee weapons, but I don't hear you claiming that they are the same thing. (At least I hope not)

That alone should be enough to convince most people that just because two thing are part of the same sub-group does not mean that those things are treated identically in all respects.


And, once again, the description provides everything we need to know:
SRD
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
A monk does "unarmed strike". Gauntlet does lethal damage (and can actually only do lethal damage, not even a monk can change that to non-lethal without taking the -4 penaltY). That is the only difference to "unarmed strike", the only other sub-category in the category "unarmed attacks" (and the only instance when a difference is ever made between unarmed strike and unarmed attack, even in the improved unarmed strike feat description, unarmed strike and unarmed attack are not distinguised. Basically only that feat turns your unarmed strike into a status that you are considered "armed", i.e. not provoking AoO).

But it does, it says "In addition, your unarmed strikes...", not "In addition, your unarmed attacks". An Unarmed Strike is well-defined and nowhere does it say that things that apply to you when you are not armed also automatically apply to your Unarmed Strikes.


Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.



Ah, and btw, while a monk cannot flurry with natural attacks, he can still use unarmed strikes in other (morphed) forms, and he can also take the improved natural attack feat to enhance his unarmed strike damage, as does the enlarge spell.


Yes, but so what?
Why do you keep bringing this up? What is the relevance?

Draz74
2008-01-10, 09:33 PM
Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a
magic weapon?
D&D FAQ v.3.5 20 Update Version: 10/19/07
No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal
answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and
therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes).
The amulet of mighty fists (Dungeon Master’s Guide, 246)
grants the wearer an enhancement bonus on unarmed and
natural weapon attacks, which would include the monk’s
unarmed strike.

I think somewhere it does say that a Monk gets to use his unarmed damage value when using a gauntlet. But this quote seems to settle that he can't, for example, Flurry when using a gauntlet.

Also, the fact that he isn't proficient with using a gauntlet as a weapon isn't too big of a concern, considering that he technically wasn't proficient with his Unarmed Strike either, anyway. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

Indon
2008-01-11, 01:32 PM
I think somewhere it does say that a Monk gets to use his unarmed damage value when using a gauntlet. But this quote seems to settle that he can't, for example, Flurry when using a gauntlet.

Also, the fact that he isn't proficient with using a gauntlet as a weapon isn't too big of a concern, considering that he technically wasn't proficient with his Unarmed Strike either, anyway. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

If I recall, the FAQ had contradictory answers on that topic.

I'd say that since the interpretation which says you can't flurry with a gauntlet seems to also imply that you couldn't flurry with touch attacks (Yeah, I can hit really fast... unless I don't want to actually hurt you. Then I have to slow down) marks that interpretation of the rules as silly, and thus eliminated (at least from my games) via absurdity.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-12, 05:54 AM
Hmmm. First @Lord Silvanos: Yep, there appears to have been a misunderstanding.
It could really be argued that a monk is not proficient with the simple weapon gauntlet, because he does not have simple weapon proficiency.
However, even here I would say that the description of the gauntlet (not the spiked one!) strongly suggest that since the only difference ito unaramed strike s to do lethal damage, it can be considered the same for proficiency purposes. And, Draz74, ALL characters are considered proficient with unarmed strike. The only problem is that you draw AoO vs armed foes, but this is overcome by improved unarmed strike (a bonus feat for the monk).

The FAQ answer is highly dissatisfying, since it
1) uses words like "gauntlet isn't the IDEAL answer" - meaning there is room for interpretation (where I would say the rules are quite clear: gauntlets are definitely allowed to use for a monk at no penalty, and with all his abilities) . The point is that gauntlet and spiked gauntlet are listed under different categories, one being listed under unarmed attacks (so it is not a "weapon", and as Lord Silvanos has correctly pointed out, you are still considered unarmed when wielding it), and the other with the rest of the simple weapon listings.
And
2) there are various spells that provide enhancement bonuses to unarmed strikes, so it makes no big sense that the monk cannot have enhanced fists (via a gauntlet; on fists the fists need to be masterwork first to be echanted, not possible for flesh fists :smallbiggrin: )

- Giacomo

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-12, 06:10 AM
Hmmm. First @Lord Silvanos: Yep, there appears to have been a misunderstanding.
It could really be argued that a monk is not proficient with the simple weapon gauntlet, because he does not have simple weapon proficiency.
However, even here I would say that the description of the gauntlet (not the spiked one!) strongly suggest that since the only difference ito unaramed strike s to do lethal damage, it can be considered the same for proficiency purposes.

Now that would be a good and reasonable argument for introducing it as a house rule, but balance or common sense does not make a thing RAW.

Unless of course you can show that a Gauntlet is not a weapon or that an attack with a Gauntlet is considered an Unarmed Strike.

Talya
2008-01-12, 09:46 AM
Sir Giacomo, did you not see Draz74's post above? From the official D&D 3.5 FAQ?

"Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal
answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and
therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes)."

Since the FAQ is part of the RAW, it's cut and dry. They aren't special monk weapons (can't flurry), and "aren't as versatile as unarmed strikes" also means they are not actually unarmed strikes.

It's a reasonable houserule, but it's not RAW.

Ne0
2008-01-12, 10:02 AM
The SRD states:


Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.



When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham).

So I think it's perfectly legal to flurry with gauntlets. And since a gauntlet is considered an unarmed strike, the monk's enchantments to his unarmed attacks stacks on that.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-12, 10:22 AM
You're correct NeO,

your post even shows that in the first sentence of the gauntlet description it says "...you deal lethal damage...(....)... with unarmed strikes". So in this description the wording of "unarmed strike" and "unarmed attack" (used in the second sentence) appears to be used synonymously.
No need to go to lengths to say that the monk needs to take the simple weapon proficiency feat to use a gauntlet.

@Talya: as I said, the FAQ is not clear enough on this, since it merely refers to "not listed as monk weapons". But a gauntlet by its description is considered of the unarmed strike kind. So the monk is proficient in it (like everyone else, btw). And his bonus feat improved unarmed strike lets him also overcome the AoO disadvantage vs armed foes.

So this is how the rules consider unarmed attacks:
1) everyone is proficient in unarmed attack/unarmed strike. However, you only deal non-lethal damage and trigger AoO vs armed foes.
2) the gauntlet allows you to deal lethal damage (without being a monk and/or have the improved unarmed strike feat), but ONLY lethal damage, and you are still considered unarmed (so you still triger an AoO vs armed foes)
3) the monk or everyone who has improved unarmed strike has both: ability to CHOOSE to do lethal damage and avoid AoO vs armed foes.
If a monk uses a gauntlet, it gives him no additional advantage, but he can enhance it (or may opt for a magic gauntlet with all the usual stuff) and all his other unarmed strike gadgets (including ki stuff) apply.

- Giacomo

Talya
2008-01-12, 10:39 AM
Sir Giacomo, you are arguing with RAW. It's very clear. you just ignored what was said.

According to RAW, which I quoted above, gauntlets are neither an unarmed strike, nor a special monk weapon.

"these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and
therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes)."


If it isn't as versatile as an unarmed strike, it is not an unarmed strike. The main point of pointing out it is not a special monk weapon is to show you cannot flurry with it. That is explicitly stated. Silvanos is correct. RAW says they are considered "unarmed attacks." This is explicitly different terminology than "unarmed strike." Unarmed strike is an explicit weapon proficiency. Unarmed attack is merely an indicator that without the right feat, you provoke AOOs by attacking.

Ergo:
RAW explicitly states you cannot flurry with gauntlets.
Somehow you are rationalizing this means you can flurry with gauntlets.



No, you can't. it's right there. You are arguing a house rule. By raw, it can't be done. It says so in the quoted material, directly.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-12, 10:51 AM
You're correct NeO,

No.


your post even shows that in the first sentence of the gauntlet description it says "...you deal lethal damage...(....)... with unarmed strikes". So in this description the wording of "unarmed strike" and "unarmed attack" (used in the second sentence) appears to be used synonymously.
No need to go to lengths to say that the monk needs to take the simple weapon proficiency feat to use a gauntlet.


In that case appearances can be deceiving.
An Unarmed Strike is a kind of Unarmed attack just like a Light Mace is a kind of light weapon.
If they meant for your gauntlet attacks to be considered Unarmed Strikes they would say so.
Instead they choose to tell you that you are still making an unarmed attack even weapon your are using a gauntlet as a weapon.


3) the monk or everyone who has improved unarmed strike has both: ability to CHOOSE to do lethal damage and avoid AoO vs armed foes.
If a monk uses a gauntlet, it gives him no additional advantage, but he can enhance it (or may opt for a magic gauntlet with all the usual stuff) and all his other unarmed strike gadgets (including ki stuff) apply.


It is not a choice, dealing lethal damage is the default use of the gauntlet. If you want to deal non-lethal you have to take the penalty.
A gauntlet can be enhanced and the Monk uses his Unarmed Strike damage, but since a gauntlet is not a special monk weapon it cannot be used in a FoB.

Ne0
2008-01-12, 11:05 AM
An Unarmed Strike is a kind of Unarmed attack just like a Light Mace is a kind of light weapon.
Indeed. It can deal lethal damage, and doesn't allow an AoO.



If they meant for your gauntlet attacks to be considered Unarmed Strikes they would say so.
Wait, we're talking about Wizards here, right? If they said everything they meant, they wouldn't need an Errata. :smallwink:
But that's not relevant.


Instead they choose to tell you that you are still making an unarmed attack even weapon your are using a gauntlet as a weapon.

Indeed. They're unarmed attacks that deal lethal damage. But the Improved Unarmed strike feat - which the monk gains at 1st level - states:

Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed.
In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

Therefore, your unarmed attacks are considered unarmed strikes. I really fail to see the problem with this. No offence.

And a monk can make a FoB with an unarmed strike.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-12, 11:21 AM
Indeed. They're unarmed attacks that deal lethal damage. But the Improved Unarmed strike feat - which the monk gains at 1st level - states:

Therefore, your unarmed attacks are considered unarmed strikes. I really fail to see the problem with this. No offence.


That is not what the feat says, I think that is the problem in your case.

It says that your are armed even when unarmed. Nothing else.
Nothing about making Flurry of blows without using special monk weapons or Unarmed Strikes or being proficient with weapons you are not proficient with.

Ne0
2008-01-12, 11:31 AM
That is not what the feat says, I think that is the problem in your case.

So when you take the 'Improved Unarmed Strike' feat, your unarmed attacks are NOT unarmed strikes? :smallconfused: :smallamused:


It says that your are armed even when unarmed. Nothing else.
Nothing about making Flurry of blows without using special monk weapons or Unarmed Strikes or being proficient with weapons you are not proficient with.

Alright I see the point in the 'not proficient with it', but let's review the FoB:


When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons.

You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.
In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.


It's pretty ovious that if you have the unarmed strike feat, you can apply that to a gauntlet. (Otherwise, you can't attack with a gauntlet without provoking an AoO)
So why wouldn't you be able to flurry with it?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-12, 11:41 AM
So when you take the 'Improved Unarmed Strike' feat, your unarmed attacks are NOT unarmed strikes? :smallconfused: :smallamused:

It is sort of the other way around.
When you take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, attacks that would normally be considered unarmed are now armed.
In case of the Unarmed Strikes; Your Unarmed Strikes are considered armed attacks.
In case of the Gauntlet; Your Gauntlet attack is considered an armed attack.



Alright I see the point in the 'not proficient with it', but let's review the FoB:

It's pretty ovious that if you have the unarmed strike feat, you can apply that to a gauntlet. (Otherwise, you can't attack with a gauntlet without provoking an AoO)
So why wouldn't you be able to flurry with it?


That is because the Improved Unarmed Strike feat extends beyond Unarmed Strikes. It covers all case where you are unarmed, for instance if your weapon of choice is the Gauntlet.

Ne0
2008-01-12, 11:48 AM
Exactly. So...


Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.

Now I'm absolutely confused. Are we still talking about the same thing? :smalltongue:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-12, 11:55 AM
Exactly. So...



Now I'm absolutely confused. Are we still talking about the same thing? :smalltongue:

I am, but I cannot guarantee that you are. :smallamused:

Let me try to expand a little on what I said and word it a little differently.

Anyone with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can attack with a Gauntlet without incurring AoOs, because even though the Gauntlet is NOT an Unarmed Strike, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat covers all situations where you are considered unarmed, not just when you use Unarmed Strikes.

A Gauntlet cannot be used in a FoB, since it is not a special monk weapon or an Unarmed Strike.

I hope that helps. :smallsmile:

Draz74
2008-01-12, 12:04 PM
And, Draz74, ALL characters are considered proficient with unarmed strike.

I approve of this as a houserule, but I've been unable to find anything in the rules that supports it.

@NeO:


Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal
answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and
therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes).

When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons.

The FAQ quote ... has no purpose at all, unless it is meaning to say, "Gauntlets can't be used in a flurry of blows." I admit, this is a badly written FAQ, which, when combined with a badly written explanation of how gauntlets work, means that no interpretation of the rules is entirely satisfying.

Sufficeth to say, it seems to most of us that the Gauntlet is not considered an "Unarmed Strike" (even though it certainly is considered an "unarmed attack"). This is in spite of the implication to the contrary in the sentence

Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes.
... although, without the FAQ, I'm not sure how I'd justify ignoring that implication.

Ne0
2008-01-12, 12:24 PM
That last bit was pretty much my point. :smallbiggrin:
I think of a gauntlet as just a way to convert your unarmed strikes to lethal damage. Thus, I see an attack with a gauntlet as an 'unarmed strike'.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-12, 01:02 PM
... badly written explanation of how gauntlets work...

Yes, but it would never have been an issue if the designers had shown the Monk just a little love.


This is in spite of the implication to the contrary in the sentence

... although, without the FAQ, I'm not sure how I'd justify ignoring that implication.


Yes, but after the FAQ removed some of the contradictions what remains is to ask yourself two important questions:

1. Is the gauntlet a weapon.
2. Are you using the gauntlet when you are striking with it.

Ne0
2008-01-12, 01:12 PM
1. Is the gauntlet a weapon.
Technically, I'd say yes.


2. Are you using the gauntlet when you are striking with it.
Why does that matter? :smallconfused:


Truly, it are these moments that I crave for 4e...Although I can predict that the monk will be scrapped.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-12, 01:22 PM
Technically, I'd say yes.


Why does that matter? :smallconfused:

If you use a weapon you are not proficient with you incur non-proficiency penalties. :smallamused:


Truly, it are these moments that I crave for 4e...Although I can predict that the monk will be scrapped.

Well the idea of an unarmored and unarmed combatant is not bad...

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-12, 01:33 PM
OK guys.

I read the PHB again. What is the problem here? We actually only need this entry in the PHB on p. 41
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weaponand a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells)."
So a spellcaster can actually turn a monk's fists into magic weapons with the appropriate item creation feat. Fascinating (I have actually never read that entry before). Definitely, though a holy sword spell works on a monk's fist.

Then, onto the gauntlet thing. Again, quite clear to me.
First thing: Unarmed strike entry. It could be argued that since an unarmed strike is summarised under the heading of "simple weapon proficiency", the monk is not proficient in unarmed strike - since there is no special mention anywhere in the monk text (only the fluff "monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed...". But he is also by RAW, due to the fact that he does not receive any penalties in the table of "Flurry of blows" (only those that are directly mentioned and explained in the text).
Then, the gauntlet then specifies that someone using it will be able to do lethal damage with an UNARMED STRIKE. No unarmed attack. No natural attack. The text specifically says "UNARMED STRIKE". To which the monk applies all his usual unarmed strike stuff (flurry, more base damage, ki, etc.).

The whole point of my perseverence is this matter is to avoid impressions of RAW prohibiting the monk to use magic weapon enhancements, if he did not take one of the most worthless feats ever (simple weapon proficiency-gauntlet). And as an unarmed weapon master, at that.

- Giacomo

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-12, 01:48 PM
OK guys.

I read the PHB again. What is the problem here? We actually only need this entry in the PHB on p. 41
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weaponand a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells)."
So a spellcaster can actually turn a monk's fists into magic weapons with the appropriate item creation feat.

No, since that would require a masterwork weapon.


However, only masterwork items may be enhanced to become magic armor and weapons.


Fascinating (I have actually never read that entry before). Definitely, though a holy sword spell works on a monk's fist.

Yes, certainly.


Then, onto the gauntlet thing. ...
Then, the gauntlet then specifies that someone using it will be able to do lethal damage with an UNARMED STRIKE. No unarmed attack. No natural attack. The text specifically says "UNARMED STRIKE". To which the monk applies all his usual unarmed strike stuff (flurry, more base damage, ki, etc.).

Again the gauntlet is a weapon and it is not allowed in a flurry.


When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham).
(My emphasis)

Furthermore the monk is not proficient with gauntlets.

The monk's increased Unarmed Strike damage and Ki would apply to attacks with the Gauntlet as normal.


The whole point of my perseverence is this matter is to avoid impressions of RAW prohibiting the monk to use magic weapon enhancements, if he did not take one of the most worthless feats ever (simple weapon proficiency-gauntlet). And as an unarmed weapon master, at that.


Then show that a gauntlet is not a weapon or that the monk is not using it when striking with it.

Zenos
2008-01-12, 01:53 PM
About you needing proficiency to use the gauntlets as a weapon:

I would deem it under the category of "clothing/armour".

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-12, 01:57 PM
About you needing proficiency to use the gauntlets as a weapon:

I would deem it under the category of "clothing/armour".

And do you have any RAW support for that?

It might make a good house rule, but we are discussing the RAW, not reasonable house rules.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-12, 01:58 PM
On enhancing a monk's fists, magic fang (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicFang.htm) should work, and the greater version could be permanancied, which I wouldn't balk at doing for a party member.

Ne0
2008-01-12, 02:03 PM
So you'd need the 'simple weapon proficiency' feat to use magic gauntlets. Fair deal, I'd say.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-12, 03:09 PM
OK, I give up :smallsmile:

Simple weapon proficiency - gauntlet it is.
Everything in the rules appears imo to point to the fact that a gauntlet can be used by a monk without the feat, but since it is listed in the simple weapons category and nowhere in the text there is 100% clear distinction from that rule, the monk needs a simple weapon proficiency to use an enchanted gauntlet.

- Giacomo

EDIT: by the RAW, it is not exactly clear that you need a masterwork weapon to enchant the normal fists, since the monk entry that I mentioned opposes (and could be interpreted to override) the magic weapon creation entry. But as a DM, I would also see the sense in not allowing fists to be turned into permanent magic weapons as per the item creation rules. Similarly, though, I would interpret the rules as clearly conveying the notion that the monk does not need an extra proficiency for one of the two unarmed attack possibilities of a simple weapons table (unarmed strike and gauntlet, potrayed as being 100% the same as unarmed strike EXCEPT for the ability to do lethal damage).

Draz74
2008-01-12, 03:40 PM
So you'd need the 'simple weapon proficiency' feat to use magic gauntlets. Fair deal, I'd say.

Still can't Flurry, though. Better (IMHO) to make a houserule instead.


First thing: Unarmed strike entry. It could be argued that since an unarmed strike is summarized under the heading of "simple weapon proficiency", the monk is not proficient in unarmed strike - since there is no special mention anywhere in the monk text (only the fluff "monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed...". But he is also by RAW, due to the fact that he does not receive any penalties in the table of "Flurry of blows" (only those that are directly mentioned and explained in the text).

Yeah ... they meant to give the Monk Unarmed Strike proficiency, certainly, and they were therefore assuming it when they wrote up the table (although that column in the table could be referring to other monk weapons just as easily as unarmed strikes). But they didn't actually say that monks have unarmed strike proficiency, and when a table contradicts a rule, the rule is officially supposed to prevail. No one is claiming that unarmed strike proficiency is a legitimate "nerf" of the monk class, intended by the designers; it's just an editing error (which I find highly amusing :smallamused:).


Then, the gauntlet then specifies that someone using it will be able to do lethal damage with an UNARMED STRIKE. No unarmed attack. No natural attack. The text specifically says "UNARMED STRIKE".

Correct. So the most literal interpretation of the text is that somehow, because you're wearing a gauntlet, your unarmed strikes (presumably kicks or elbow whacks or whatever) suddenly do lethal damage instead of nonlethal. Does that make any sense? No.

Is it more reasonable to assume that what the rule meant was that you can use your gauntlet in an attack and still consider the attack an unarmed strike except that it deals lethal damage? Well, that would be reasonable, and probably make for a better game; but unfortunately, the FAQ (and, IIRC, some other places in the rules too) don't agree. They support what Silvanos is saying: that the gauntlet is a weapon, and therefore it doesn't get any of the special advantages of an "unarmed strike." The only way in which it's really even similar is that it provokes an AoO if you don't have the IUS feat.

So yeah: your interpretation is what the text strongly implies (but doesn't say explicitly) in the rules for gauntlets. But other rules imply that this same interpretation is wrong. It's kinda like if one page of the book said, "Elves' melee attacks always miss," while another page of the book said, "Elves roll attack rolls just like any other characters." Stupid? Yes. Contradictions in the rules are very stupid and frustrating, but they happen. :smallfurious: If the book said that, the literal interpretation of it would be, "If you're an elf, you have to roll attack rolls whenever you attack, even though you'll automatically miss in melee." The gauntlet situation is similar.


To which the monk applies all his usual unarmed strike stuff (flurry, more base damage, ki, etc.).

See, now, that's a jump in your reasoning. A reasonable-but-not-as-reasonable-as-your-last-point interpretation. And again, contradicted elsewhere in the rules.

Houserule it if you like, of course. Although, if I'm going to houserule something to make the Monk better, I'm not going to pick the gauntlet issue. Because what I think is even stupider than a contradiction in the rules is ... the image of a nimble, unarmored martial artist, wearing big clunky lumps of metal on his hands (Flaming Thundering lumps of metal, at that) so he can fight better. :smallconfused::smallyuk:

I'd much rather make a houserule that the Wizard can just enchant the monk's fists in spite of the masterwork issue; or make Amulets of Mighty Fists a reasonable price; or make glove-versions of the Amulet that allow the monk to add other weapon enchantments; or give some Kensai class features to the Monk; or just give the Monk enough love in other areas that it doesn't matter much if his fists aren't magical ... I could go on.


The whole point of my perseverence is this matter is to avoid impressions of RAW prohibiting the monk to use magic weapon enhancements, if he did not take one of the most worthless feats ever (simple weapon proficiency-gauntlet). And as an unarmed weapon master, at that.

Well, I'm afraid that it seems quite clear to me that the designers did, indeed, intend for the Monk to have no way to get permanently magical, more-than-just-an-enhancement-bonus unarmed attacks (except the Kensai PrC). I don't agree that this was a good idea, but I think it was their intention in writing the RAW.

Ne0
2008-01-12, 03:51 PM
Okay, I'm not going to repeat that discussion. Just...see above, or something. :smallwink:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-12, 03:53 PM
Simple weapon proficiency - gauntlet it is.
Everything in the rules appears imo to point to the fact that a gauntlet can be used by a monk without the feat, but since it is listed in the simple weapons category and nowhere in the text there is 100% clear distinction from that rule, the monk needs a simple weapon proficiency to use an enchanted gauntlet.

No, the monk needs the feat if he does not want to have a non-proficiency penalty while using the gauntlet.


EDIT: by the RAW, it is not exactly clear that you need a masterwork weapon to enchant the normal fists, since the monk entry that I mentioned opposes (and could be interpreted to override) the magic weapon creation entry.

Not clear?
The monk entry does absolutely nothing to change the need for masterwork weapons for creating magic weapons. It allows you to cast spells for manufactured or natural weapons on your hand and by virtue of the FAQ it also allows you to take the Improved Natural Attack Feat. It does nothing that changes the rules for creating permanent magic items.

How is it being "not exactly clear"?


However, only masterwork items may be enhanced to become magic armor and weapons.